9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Power of Deputy Commissioner to relax conditions while calling for tenders in public interest. 2. Allegation of arbitrary waiver of crucial conditions affecting public interest. 3. Validity of conditions imposed in the tender notice. 4. Compliance of tender requirements by successful tenderers. 5. Public interest vs. commercial interest in tender acceptance. 6. Discretion of Deputy Commissioner in relaxing non-statutory conditions. 7. Comparison with a Division Bench ruling on executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case is whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to relax conditions while calling for tenders in public interest. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner arbitrarily waived crucial conditions affecting public interest, specifically conditions related to tenderer qualifications and required documents. 2. The petitioner contended that the successful tenderers did not comply with the tender requirements, such as submitting registration certificates and tax clearance certificates. The petitioner claimed that relaxing these conditions was arbitrary and against public interest, as it affected both the petitioner's rights and public interest. 3. The conditions imposed in the tender notice included requirements such as tenderers being owners of saw mills or registered contractors, depositing earnest money, executing agreements within a specified time, and providing income-tax and sales tax clearances. The petitioner highlighted that conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9 were crucial and should not have been arbitrarily waived. 4. The petitioner alleged that the successful tenderers did not submit the necessary documents, making them ineligible. However, the Deputy Commissioner approved their tenders based on cost savings, which amounted to Rs. 700 to Rs. 800 per house. The relaxation of conditions was justified by the cost-saving benefits. 5. The judgment emphasized the importance of competitive pricing for building janatha houses to keep construction costs low without compromising material quality. The Deputy Commissioner's discretion in relaxing non-statutory conditions was upheld, as it served public interest by saving a significant amount of money for the exchequer. 6. Reference was made to a Division Bench ruling on executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. The judgment clarified that the Deputy Commissioner, as a senior officer entrusted with statutory tasks, had the authority to exercise discretion in the best interests of the State, even if it meant relaxing certain conditions in public interest. 7. Ultimately, the court found that the public interest was not compromised by the Deputy Commissioner's actions, as they resulted in substantial cost savings for the exchequer. The petitions filed by the rival trader were dismissed, emphasizing that slight irregularities did not give standing to challenge the decision, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents. This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, considerations, and legal principles addressed in the judgment regarding the Deputy Commissioner's power to relax tender conditions in the context of public interest and cost-saving measures.
|
