Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The real question which requires consideration in this petition is as to whether the contract could have been given to respondent No.6 for a period of 25 years without inviting tenders or public advertisement. It is required to be noted that the petitioner has challenged the action of the Corporation in awarding the contract without inviting tenders and has ultimately challenged the lease agreement entered into between the Corporation and respondent no.6.

Considering the above, we are not in a position to accept the contention of Mr. Apte, learned counsel for the Corporation, that unless the Resolution is challenged, the lease agreement cannot be challenged by the petitioner. When the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Corporation in giving lease for 25 years without inviting tender or public advertisement, even if the resolution in this behalf is not challenged, the ultimate decision of executing the lease deed can be challenged by the petitioner. We do not find merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation and the learned counsel for Respondent No.6 that the petition at the behest of the said petitioner should not be entertained as the petitioner has filed the above petition only because the Respondent No. 6 has refused to enter into a contract for boating with the petitioner. May be the petitioner has claimed certain reliefs for itself in the above petition, that would not disentitle it from challenging the award of contract to the respondent No.6 for a period of 25 years without inviting tenders. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction would be failing in its duty if the said challenge is not considered, on the ground that the petitioner in the above petition is claiming certain reliefs for itself. More especially in view of the fact that the issues of distribution of State largesse and loss to public exchequer are brought before it. It is true that in prayer clause (a) of the petition, the petitioner has prayed that the record and proceedings in respect of the passing of the resolution may be called for and after perusing the same, it may be declared that the lease agreement dated 19th September, 2001 in favour of respondent No.6 is illegal and unconstitutional. The main issue therefore is as to whether the aforesaid contract given to respondent No.6 can be said to be illegal, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 on the ground that the same is given for a long period of 25 years and that too without inviting tenders by public advertisement. We are also required to see as to whether the action of the Corporation is mala fide as the proprietor of respondent No.6 is the mother of an employee of the Corporation.

17. So far as the contract in question is concerned, it is required to be noted that prior to giving such contract it is pointed out to the Court that all throughout such boating or fishing contract used to be given by way of auction and this is the first time that the lease has been given without holding any auction or without inviting tenders. It is required to be noted that unless there are compelling circumstances, the public body is required to give contract by way of advertisement or by way of inviting tenders. It is not the case of the Corporation that it is only respondent No.6 in the entire State or in the country who is capable of performing such a contract. Respondent No.6 had not even undertaken any such work in the past and this is the first such assignment which it has been granted by the Corporation and that too without inviting any tenders. We agree with the submission of Mr. Thorat that the work of cleaning lake is not such a work which nobody can perform. In our view, the decision of the Corporation to give contract of such a long term of 25 years at a stretch would amount to creating monopoly in favour of one party for a long period.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that giving lease for such a long period of 25 years and that too without issuing any advertisement and without inviting any tenders, the Corporation has acted in an arbitrary manner. This is not such type of work which could not have waited for some time during which period tender proceedings could have been initiated by the Corporation. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter we are of the opinion that the lease agreement entered into between the Corporation and respondent No.6 is not sustainable and the same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Corporation is now directed to invite fresh tenders for giving composite contract of fishing, boating and clearing of Masunda Lake and ultimately after considering the rival claims, if any, may take appropriate decision. Corporation may invite fresh tenders and award the same to the successful bidder within a period of four months from today. However, since respondent no.6 is continuing with the contract, at present Corporation shall allow respondent No.6 to continue with the same till the said tender process is completed. It is for the Corporation to consider as to who is a fit and proper person to undertake this work and for which if any bid is given by respondent No.6 as well as by the petitioner, their respective bids may also be considered in accordance with law. Whether preference would be given to anyone having specialised knowledge or not is also left to the discretion of the Corporation. In the light of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the action of the Corporation to execute the lease agreement in favour of respondent No.6 for a period of 25 years, without inviting tenders and without holding any auction is arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is clarified that it is open to the Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above.