9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hink it is clear from the record that the reasonable assessment of the tender value made by the High Court at 40,29,600/- was only a tentative expression of opinion. That apart fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, it is clear that the Tender Acceptance Committee had the necessary authority to re-assess the value of the tender which it did by fixing the value at 2 crores. This value was fixed after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Enforcement Inspectors as also the report and data supplied by the PWD and if the said authorities thought it fit and safe to rely upon the data supplied by the PWD authorities we can find no fault with the same. In this context in our opinion, the Minister who disagreed with the recommendation of the Tender Acceptance Committee was in error in coming to the conclusion that the figure of 40,29,600/- fixed by the learned Single Judge in his order was a final value and the State Authorities had no right to differ from the same. Princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 made in Writ Appeal No.710/2002 confirming the judgment dated 7.11.2002 made by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court at Shillong Bench in W.P. ) No.355(SH)/2002. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The State of Meghalaya owns a weigh bridge at Morkjniange which it had decided to lease out to contractors who were willing to take it on lease on yearly basis. For the said purpose it issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) from interested persons for operating the said weigh bridge. Pursuant to the said notification number of tenderers offered their bids. On 11.2.2002, the respondent-State accepted the bid of one Smt. Nila Niangti, respondent No.5 herein, which was for a sum of ₹ 1.21 crores and the contract was settled in her favour. One of the bidders who participated in the said tender challenged the said acceptance of the bid before the High Court in W.P. No.34(SH) of 2002, inter alia, on the ground that the said acceptance was contrary to the prescribed guidelines and the bid amount accepted was speculatory and predatory in nature. The learned Single Judge who heard the said writ petition accepted the contention of the writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identified by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 15.3.2002. It is not necessary for us to go into the particulars of the other bids for the purposes of disposal of this appeal, hence, we will not refer to those particulars. 5. The Tender Acceptance Committee recommended to the Minister of Transport for approval of the acceptance of tender of Mr.C.Yonbon whose bid was 1,75,00,567/- and who was otherwise qualified in all respects as per the tender regulation. However, the Minister disagreed with the recommendations made by the Tender Committee solely on the ground that the High Court as per its order dated 15.3.2002 had directed the respondent-State to take into consideration the report submitted by the Enforcement Inspector of the Department of Motor Vehicles as regards the average number of trucks loaded and unloaded plying from Jaintia Hills to Guwahati and vice-versa per day while making the re-tender, hence, any deviation from the above direction would amount to contempt of court and it would be contrary to the mandate of the said judgment to rely on any other source of information like the data supplied by the Public Works Department while making an assessment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary to the directions issued previously, therefore, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Bench granted three weeks' further time to the respondent authorities for settling the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court. 9. After the matter came back to the authorities, the authorities decided to accept the tender of the 4th respondent herein which was for a sum of ₹ 40,29,600/- per annum on the ground that the said respondent had proved his financial capacity while the other two equivalent bidders had not done so. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order granting the lease in favour of the 4th respondent the other 2 tenderers who had offered identical amounts preferred two writ petitions before the said High Court. The main contention of the writ petitioners in the said petitions was that the acceptance of the bid of the 4th respondent which was identical with theirs solely on the ground of financial capacity was contrary to the guidelines. 11. Learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 7.11.2002 dismissed the said writ petition. The court held that the decision of the authorities to choose the 4th resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the property of the State Government where one and the only criteria for consideration would be the interest of revenue of the State. He submitted the valuation made by the Transport Department is only one of the materials to be relied upon for the purpose of knowing the probable value of the lease and cannot be the sole basis when there are other reliable materials which showed that the volume of transport on the concerned route was much higher. It is also contended even otherwise from the material on record the Tender acceptance Committee was justified in coming to the conclusion that the value of the tender would be as much as ₹ 2 crores. In such a situation the respondent-State could not have fixed the value of tender at ₹ 40,29,600/- merely because the High Court in the earlier judgment considered the said value as reasonable value. It is the submission of the learned counsel that fixation of value of the contract is within the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned and the court ought not to have embarked upon the exercise of this nature with the limited material available to it. He also submitted that the Minster was wholly wrong in coming to the conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was one such person who offered his bid. It is also not disputed that between the appellant and respondents 4, 5 and 6 appellant's bid is very much higher. It is the case of the appellant which, of course, is disputed by the other side that he had no knowledge whatsoever of any one's bid being accepted much less his bid being rejected. Therefore, when he came to know of the acceptance of the bid of the 4th respondent for the first time after the disposal of the second round of litigation by the learned Single Judge, he approached the Appellate Bench of the High Court because rejection of his bid in preference to the bid of the 4th respondent was arbitrary and contrary to law. The Appellate Bench of the High Court has thought it fit to entertain the appeal of the appellant by rejecting the objections raised by the 4th respondent and the State. We find no reason to interfere with this finding as to the maintainability of the appeal because if really the bid of the appellant was rejected erroneously and the appellant had no knowledge of such acceptance or rejection, the appellant has every right to challenge the said rejection of his bid and also the acceptance of the 4th res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material available to it. We think it is clear from the above judgment that the reasonable assessment of the tender value made by the High Court at ₹ 40,29,600/- was only a tentative expression of opinion. That apart fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. From the above findings of ours, it is clear that the Tender Acceptance Committee had the necessary authority to re-assess the value of the tender which it did by fixing the value at ₹ 2 crores. This value was fixed after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Enforcement Inspectors as also the report and data supplied by the PWD and if the said authorities thought it fit and safe to rely upon the data supplied by the PWD authorities we can find no fault with the same. In this context in our opinion, the Minister who disagreed with the recommendation of the Tender Acceptance Committee was in error in coming to the conclusion that the figure of ₹ 40,29,600/- fixed by the learned Single Judge in his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through route in which this weigh bridge is situated. We are told that these trucks mostly carry coal from Jaintia Hills to Guwahati. As per the notification the person operating the weigh bridge can only charge a sum of ₹ 30/- for a loaded truck and ₹ 10/- for an unloaded truck. Therefore, the fee to be collected from the transporters for weighment of their vehicles is fixed and it does not vary with the amount of bid offered by the contractor. This is not a contract of supply where a contractor by manipulating the price may cause loss to public at large. This is not a contract which would have any effect on the price of coal, since weighment charges are fixed by the Government and the contractor has no right to increase the same. Payment of bid amount is purely a matter between the contractor and the State. As a matter of fact obtaining higher revenue by accepting the eligible highest bid would only be in public interest because State stands to gain more revenue. The offering of the bid after knowing the commercial value of the contract is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the tenderer. No third party's interest is involved in such contract. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bid is held to be illegal by us the same has to be set aside but we will not issue directions to the respondent State Government to accept the bid of the appellant because in our opinion it is in the interest of justice that a fresh tender should be called for and based on the bids received pursuant thereto, and in accordance with the guidelines, a fresh contract will have to be entered into by the State Government in regard to this weigh bridge. At the same time since this process is likely to take sometime we do not want to create a void by directing the 4th respondent to hand over possession of the weigh bridge to the Government at this stage more so because of the fact under the guidelines applicable the 4th respondent must have paid the lease amount upto the period of 18.9.2004. Therefore we direct the respondent State to call for fresh tenders and take a decision in regard to acceptance of a fresh bid and grant new contract on or before 1.7.2004. Till such time the 4th respondent will be permitted to operate the weigh bridge and on the acceptance of the tender by 1.7.2004 new contractor whose bid is accepted shall be entitled to run the same for the period agreed therein. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
