Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. In support of the plea that when none of the essential tender conditions were violated, the tender could not be rejected, reliance was placed on the decisions in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95, Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand Prashar (2016) 12 SCC 632 and M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2019 (1) Mh. LJ 56.

12 of 21 Submissions on behalf of the FCI

28. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the FCI/Respondent No. 1, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2 SCC 36, to contend that the government had the power to reject any or all bids without assigning reasons. In support of his submission that there is no requirement of communication of the reasons for rejection of the bid as long as those reasons were available on record, he referred to the decision dated 8th May, 2007 of the Allahabad High Court in City Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31442 of 2006), wherein the law settled by the Supreme Court in Star Enterprises v. CIDCO Maharashtra (1990) 3 SCC 280 had been explained. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 to contend that in cases of rejection of tenders, there was no necessity of issuing an 'SCN' or even passing a speaking order.