Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
9. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the apex Court in the case of
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1985) 3
Supreme Court Cases 267. In the said case, in an auction of minor mineral quarries in
respect of a particular plot, the bid of the appellant therein was Rs.3,87,000/- for a
period of 3 years and it was the highest. The said bid was accepted by the Presiding
Officer but the State Government declined to confirm the same as the highest bid did
not represent the market price. The Respondent No.4 in the said case who had also
participated in the auction approached the Chief Minister with certain complaints and
offered to pay Rs.4,50,000/- per year if the contract would be for a period of 5 years.
The said offer of Respondent No.4 was accepted by Chief Minister and the same was
challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition on a preliminary ground that the appellant has not exhausted
the alternative remedy available to him. In a Special Leave Appeal, on the asking of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant filed an affidavit before the Court stating that if
the highest bid at a re-auction fell short of Rs.4,50,000/-, the appellant would undertake
to accept the contract at the value of Rs.5,50,000/-. The Respondent No.4 was given
opportunity to raise his offer. As a result of the competitive offers made by the parties,
the last offer of Respondent No.4 came out to Rs.22 lakhs whereas the offer of the
appellant was Rs.25 lakhs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal on merits by
7
setting aside grant of quarry lease in favour of Respondent No.4 and directed the State
Government to grant contract to the appellant at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per year for 5
years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took up the pain of permitting the parties to bid
before the Court itself solely considering the fact that by adopting such a process of
negotiation, the State Government would be immensely benefited financially and
therefore, it was required to be done in public interest without violating Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Blue Star Ltd. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 2 February, 2005
A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in the case of
M/s. Blue Star Ltd. v. State of Orissa & others, reported in 2005 (I) OLR 521. In the
aforesaid case, tenders were invited in sealed cover for supply of instrument and
equipment items for eight Regional Diagnostic Centres and in response to the said
tender call notice, the petitioner and opposite party No.3 therein along with others had
submitted their bids for C.T. scan machines. On ultimate analysis of the case, in
paragraph-12 of the judgment, the Court came to the following conclusion:
Directorate Of Film Festivals & Ors vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors on 11 April, 2007
10. On perusal of what has been laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court, it is found that in the matter of tender invited by the
State or it's instrumentality, the prime consideration is the public interest. It is the duty of
the State to see that it gets the best price for the work entrusted by it to a private
individual or organization. While doing so, if necessary, the State can also enter into
negotiation with the intending parties to get the best price. Here is a case, where the
Corporation had fixed the upset price at Rs.5,36,00,250/- and bids submitted by all the
three bidders was more than the upset price fixed by the Corporation. Undisputedly
amongst the three bids, the bid submitted by opposite party No.4 was the highest. The
note sheet maintained by the Corporation shows that even though the bid submitted by
opposite party No.4 was much more than the upset price, it was suggested that the said
bid may be accepted or opposite party No.4 may be asked to negotiate his price. When
the matter was placed before the higher authorities with the above note, a decision was
taken to direct the opposite party No.4 to attend the office for negotiation of its quoted
rate and accordingly, the letter dated 16.7.2010 was issued to opposite party No.4 to
enhance the bid amount. The said letter also clearly indicates that the offer of
negotiation given by the Corporation does not confer any right for award of the work in
favour of opposite party No.4. There is no dispute that in response to the above letter,
opposite party No.4 appeared before the Corporation and refused to enhance the bid
amount. Thereafter only the matter was placed before the Managing Director for
acceptance of the bid submitted by opposite party No.4. It is, therefore, evident that as
on 16.7.2010, no decision had been taken by the Corporation to award the contract in
favour of anyone and therefore, as on the said date, no right accrued in favour of
anyone of the tenderers. If the Corporation was of the view that the bid amount quoted
by opposite party No.4 is much higher than the upset price, there was no necessity of
inviting opposite party No.4 for negotiation for upward revision of the price quoted by
him. There is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that not being satisfied with the amount quoted by opposite party No.4, the
Corporation decided to call him to negotiate for upward revision of the quoted price.
Opposite party No.4 having refused to raise the price any further, the petitioner should
have been also called to enhance his offer. Having called the opposite party No.4 for
negotiation in spite of the fact that his offer was much more than the upset price clearly
indicates that the Corporation wanted to settle the contract for a better offer and
accordingly, it was the duty of the Corporation to call all the three tenderers for the
purpose of negotiation.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1