9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice that a fair procedure is adopted by second respondent by calling for revised quotations from both the parties, the appellant and third respondent, whereunder the third respondent’s tender happened to be the lower and so much so, contract is awarded to them, not merely because third respondent is a Government Company, but because its bid is the lower one. We, therefore, find no merit in the Writ Appeal and, therefore, dismiss the same. - W.A. NO.742 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2010 - C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. Dr. K.P. Satheesan and K.K. Gopinathan Nair for the Appellant. I.V. Pramod and V. Krishna Menon for the Respondent. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. - Appeal is filed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity was given, appellant would have reduced the price further. So much so, the award of contract is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is the case of the appellant. The learned Single Judge after considering the appellant s claim and various decisions relied on by him held that the award of contract to third respondent by the Government is neither arbitrary nor in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution or in other words, it is a fair deal warranting no interference by the court. It is against this judgment appeal is filed by the appellant raising the very same contentions and by relying on the very same decisions that were raised before the learned Single Judge. 3. Counsel for the appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation of denial of equal opportunity is incorrect inasmuch as appellant vide Ext.P7 gave revised quotation, with reference to which the revised quotation given by the third respondent was considered and the price bid by third respondent was admittedly lower than the appellant by Rs.5.6 lakhs, which led the Government to award the contract in favour of third respondent. 4. In the decision relied on by the appellant in Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1527 the Supreme Court held as follows: "Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licenses or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaking located in Trivandrum i.e., within the State where the supply of the machinery and its servicing have to be made. In the first place, in our view, a Private company and a fully owned Central Government Undertaking does not stand in equal footing, while considering award of a contract by the Central Government or even the State Government. A Government Company s decision is always controlled by its Board which is constituted by the Government. Therefore, a Government Department awarding a contract to a Government Company can always expect that contract will be executed in terms of the tender conditions irrespective of the financial results of the same for the awardee namely, the Government Company. In other words, chances of brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
