Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramjilal Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 3 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)MPHT243
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J.
1. The petitioner by this petition has called in question the propriety and validity of order dated 30-12-98, Annexure P-1 issued by respondent No. 2 by which the tenders said to have beena ccepted were cancelled.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baroda, Distt. Sheopurkalan had invited certain tenders for construction items. The tenders were published in daily newspaper "Dainik Nav Prabhat" and "Dainik Chambal Wani". The petitioner submitted his tender as he was a registered A-2 Class contractor. It is the case of the petitioner that as the rates quoted by him were the lowest, his tender was passed and a resolution No. 12 was passed on 29-10-98, accepting his tender. It is submitted by him that by the impugned order the tender has been cancelled only on that ground that the notice inviting tender was not given vide circulation in any State level newspaper.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no such rule of publishing tender in a State level newspaper on the contrary it is submitted by him that vide Annexure P-7 the Regional Public Service Officer has informed that there is no prescribed State level newspaper.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the cancellation of tender is arbitrary and the same was done without giving notice to the petitioner and without hearing him, and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
5. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respon-dent/Mandi has submitted that after the tenders were issued, Collector received complaints with regard to the manner in which the tender were floated and awarded. Accordingly, the Collector ordered for certain enquiries. In the enquiry various irregularities were found. Inviting attention to Annexure R-3-5 it is submitted by him that these infirmities were considered by the Samiti. The matter was, therefore, placed before the Mandi and by resolution dated 22-9-99, Annexure R-3-6, the tenders were not finalised and it was decided to cancel the same. Inviting attention to the provisions contained in this regard vide Annexure R-3-7 it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there was various irregularities in the matter. Publication of tender notice was not done properly. It is required to be published in a newspaper which has vide publication in the District and publication has to be there as per the policy of the State Govt. Apart from this a particular time limit is fixed for receiving the tender, opening the same, etc. Accordingly, when the tender is for more than 5 lacs, there has to be a gap of 45 days between the publication of the notification and last date of receipt of tender. In this case instead of 45 days only 15 days time was allowed. Apart from this it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in this case the tender was not approved by the Mandi Samiti on the contrary the Executive Engineer had approved the same and had forwarded to the Samiti for its approval. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that Annexure P-5 was issued by the Executive Engineer and there is no resolution of the Mandi for award of tender to the petitioner. In fact the only resolution of the Mandi Samiti is contained in Annexure R-3-6 dated 22-9-96 which is for cancellation of the tenders. When the irregularities came to the light further proceedings in the tender were cancelled and retendcr was ordered. The petitioner could participate in the same and put up his claim.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the instant case no right has accrued to the petitioner. From the records it is revealed that the tender was published in some newspaper which according to the respondent did not have circulation even in the District. The records indicates that the publication of the tender was not done properly. The entire matter has been considered b,y the competent authorities and there finding is that the publication of the notice inviting lenders and subsequent procedure was highly irregular. That being so, a decision was taken to issue fresh tenders. No fault can be found in this procedure. The petitioner's tender in fact has not been accepted and there is no resolution of the Mandi Samiti accepting the resolution. The petitioner's contention that the tender was allotted to him seems to be incorrect. The petitioner is relying upon certain communications of the Executive Engineer to contend that the tender has been awarded to him. The same are in fact recommendations of the Executive Engineer and there is nothing on record to indicate that the tender was accepted and the contract was given to the petitioner. Even otherwise if there was irregularities in the procedure followed the respondents have the authority to rectify the same and no vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner. The competent authority has the power to reject all the tenders and again issue tenders for the purpose of getting better offer and for having wide participation. In the instant case it seems that the tender was not given vide publicity and without following the procedure the entire proceedings were being held in an irregular manner. On the basis of reports received from the authorities, the Mandi Samiti has passed the resolution on 22-2-99 vide Annexure R-3-6 cancelling the tenders and ordering fresh proceedings to take place. I am of the considered view that the same cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to any legal provisions in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The petition being devoid of substance is dismissed.
Cost on parties.