9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the rules in the Mysore Public Works Department Code were followed. 2. Whether there was unequal treatment between the various tenderers, constituting a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with the Mysore Public Works Department Code: The appellant contended that the rules in the Mysore Public Works Department Code were not followed in the tender process. The High Court observed that the so-called rules in the Code are not framed under any statutory enactment or constitutional provision but are merely administrative instructions for the guidance of the department. The High Court held that these instructions have no statutory force and do not confer any right on tenderers to seek relief through a writ petition under Article 226. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, stating that Article 162 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the State Government to issue statutory rules but merely indicates the scope of the executive power of the State. Therefore, any breach of these administrative instructions is a matter between the State Government and its servants and does not confer any right on the appellant to seek judicial relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to decide whether there was any breach of the instructions in the Code. 2. Alleged Violation of Article 14: The appellant argued that there was unequal treatment between the various tenderers, particularly between the appellant and respondent No. 3, which constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Two main contentions were raised in this regard: a. Acceptance of Respondent No. 3's Letter on August 31, 1966: The appellant contended that the Chief Engineer acted discriminatorily by accepting respondent No. 3's letter on August 31, 1966, even though it was beyond the seven-day period initially stipulated. The Supreme Court noted that this argument was not raised before the High Court. The Court further observed that the seven-day period was not a rigid limitation and that the Chief Engineer had also asked the appellant to reply by August 31, 1966, indicating some flexibility. The Court concluded that the acceptance of respondent No. 3's letter on August 31, 1966, did not amount to discrimination. b. Events of October 15, 1966: The appellant alleged that the Chief Engineer carried on secret negotiations with respondent No. 3 after the sealed tenders were opened on October 15, 1966, and accepted a letter from respondent No. 3 reducing the rates by 4 percent below the estimated cost. The Chief Engineer denied this, asserting that he had called a meeting of all tenderers at 7 p.m. on October 15, 1966, and asked them if they were prepared to make any further reductions or withdraw conditions. According to the Chief Engineer, six tenderers were not prepared to make any changes, while two said they would write again. Respondent No. 3 immediately wrote a letter reducing the rates by 4 percent. The High Court accepted the Chief Engineer's version, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with this view. The Court concluded that there was no discrimination in connection with the events of October 15, 1966. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the administrative instructions in the Mysore Public Works Department Code did not confer any statutory rights on the appellant and that there was no violation of Article 14 in the tender process. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
