Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts unfolded to file the present petition are, petitioner is a proprietorship Firm engaged in Pharmaceutical business. Respondent No. 1 is a Society registered under the provisions of Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1920") having its Branch office at Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. An advertisement was published inviting tenders for the purpose of allotment of a Medical shop within the premises of the Society at Bhopal. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 both submitted their tenders. Petitioner was the third highest bidder and respondent No. 2 was the fourth highest bidder. The Tender Committee met on 16.10.2017 at 3:00 PM and opened all the tenders in presence of all twenty tenderers or their representatives. The description of four highest bids as given in the return in Paragraph 8 (a) indicates that first highest bidder was Sandeep Singh Parihar who offered to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- per month as rent, second highest bidder was Mangleshwar Singh Parihar, who offered to pay an amount of Rs.21,52,000/- per month as rent, third highest bidder was petitioner, who offered to pay an amount of Rs.16,52,000/- per month as rent and fourth highest bidder was respondent No. 2, who offered to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- per month as rent. The bids received by the Tender Committee were arranged chronologically in terms of the bid amount and it was decided that in case the highest bidder does not come forward to execute the agreement then in seriatim the next bidder would be called to execute the agreement. When the first two bidders did not come forward to execute the agreement, petitioner was called on 8.11.2017 to deposit the rent of six months in advance through Bankers cheque or Demand Draft on or before 10.11.2017. On 9.11.2017, petitioner requested for extension of time upto 13.11.2017 to deposit the amount and requested to Society to remain present on 13.11.2017 in the offfice of the Registrar to execute the agreement. The said request of petitioner was not accepted vide communication dated 9.11.2017 and said that if petitioner is willing to execute the agreement, he has to come in the office of Red Cross Society upto 10.11.2017 to deposit the amount and to execute the agreement. Petitioner again requested on 10.11.2017 specifying the fact that on 11.11.2017 and 12.11.2017 there are holidays, therefore, time to deposit the amount may be extended upto 13.11.2017 but no heed was paid to the said request of petitioner and on 10.11.2017 itself notice was issued to respondent No. 2, who was the fourth highest bidder, to deposit the amount upto 14.11.2017. Respondent No. 2 also requested for extension of time for two days i.e. upto 16.11.2017 to deposit the amount and to execute the agreement, which was allowed, as apparent from document Annexure R-10, however, similar demand of the petitioner was refused without any rhyme or reason discriminating him with respondent No. 2 though he offered to pay a sum of Rs.16,52,000/- per month, which is Rs.4,52,000/- more than the amount offered by respondent No.2 i.e. Rs.12,00,000/-. On deposit of the amount by respondent No. 2, the claim of petitioner is discriminated by the arbitrary act of the authorities, however, he has knocked the door of this Court asking the reliefs as described above.

4. On merit it is submitted that the shop in question was required to be commissioned w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to which the tender was invited in the News Paper "Dainik Bhaskar". As per Clause 4 of the tender, the successful bidder was required to execute the agreement minimum for a period of six months depositing the amount of offer in advance and at the time of return of the said amount, the interest would not be leviable and payable. As the Red Cross Society do not come within the purview of definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is said that having perused the tender, the Committee met on 16.10.2017 and decided that the first highest bidder be offered and intimated to appear in person in the office of the Society and execute the agreement. It was further decided that if the first highest bidder fails to appear and execute the agreement, the second highest bidder be offered and intimated to appear in the office of the Society and execute the agreement. If he too does not come forward to execute the agreement then third highest bidder be offered and intimated to appear in the office of the Society and execute the agreement. In this way, the bidders be offered and intimated in seriatim to execute the agreement. The said Scheme was placed before Hon'ble the Governor of the State, who is the Ex-Officio President of the Society, who approved it accordingly. Petitioner was the third highest bidder and respondent No. 2 was the fourth highest bidder. It is undisputed that the difference of the amount offered by petitioner and respondent No. 2 is of Rs.4,52,000/- per month. It is merely said that looking to the response given by petitioner, it do not appear that he was willing to execute the agreement and to run the shop, therefore, the contract was given to respondent No.2 on deposit of the amount by him and the agreement was executed with him on 16.11.2017 to run the shop. There is no malafide or arbitrariness, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the undisputed facts of the present case, it is apparent that petitioner and respondent No. 2 both were participants to the tender process invited by respondent No. 1 as per Annexure P-1. Petitioner offered a sum of Rs.16,52,000/- per month towards the rent of the shop while respondent No. 2 offered a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- per month and they were shown to be the third and fourth highest bidders respectively. The Tender Committee took a decision to call the highest bidders to execute the agreement and if he does not come forward then the second highest bidder would be called and thereafter in seriatim next highest bidders would be called. It is to be noted here that the Policy was approved by Hon'ble the Governor of the State, who is the ex-officio President of the Society. Accordingly, from the date of decision i.e. 16.10.2017, to call for the first highest bidder and the second highest bidder, the Society waited for about two weeks but they did not come forward to execute the agreement. Thereafter a communication was sent to petitioner on 8.11.2017, who was the third highest bidder, to deposit the amount of rent of six months in advance by 10.11.2017. On 9.11.2017, petitioner requested for extension of time till 13.11.2017 but the said request of the petitioner was not accepted on 9.11.2017 itself reducing the time to deposit the amount by 1:00 PM of 10.11.2017. Petitioner again requested that because on 11.11.2017 and 12.11.2017, there were holidays, therefore, he will deposit the entire amount of 13.11.2017 and he is ready to execute the agreement but again ignoring the said request of petitioner, the offer was given on 10.11.2017 itself to respondent No. 2, who was the fourth highest bidder, to deposit the amount by 14.11.2017. On making request by respondent No. 2 for extension of time to deposit the amount of rent in advance, the extension of two days was granted upto 16.11.2017. Thus, it is apparent that in case of petitioner, the time was granted only for one and half days to deposit the amount of rent and when the request was made by him for extension of time, it was refused and in case of respondent No. 2 initially four days time was granted and on making the request by him, two days further time was granted. No explanation is available in the return filed by respondent No. 1 why the said discrimination has been made except to say that looking to the tenor of the letter written by petitioner, they presumed that petitioner is not interested in depositing the amount of rent in advance. In this regard, it is to be noted here that after filing the writ petition before this Court on 1.12.2017 direction to maintain the status quo was issued. On 21.12.2017 when the matter came up for hearing, the Court found that if the offer of respondent No. 2 is accepted, it would cause a loss to the Indian Red Cross Society, however, directed to petitioner to deposit the entire amount through Bankers Cheque or Demand Draft on or before 27.12.2017 and produce receipt thereof in the Court on 28.12.2017. The order has been complied by petitioner and receipt of deposit of six months' rent in advance has been produced. The said fact has also not been disputed by the Indian Red Cross Society. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be held that petitioner was not willing to deposit the amount as per the bid given by him. Clause 4 of the Tender document referred in the return by respondent No. 1 Society reads thus:-