9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the custodian of public finance, took its decision objectively with a bonafide intention to serve the best interest of the public in general - the Appellant-Corporation has not committed any wrong in cancelling its earlier tender notice and issuing subsequent tender notice afresh inviting bids from the eligible contractors. The decision of the High Court in quashing the Appellant-Corporation's decision of cancelling the earlier tender vide corrigendum dated 30.11.2012 and also the subsequent e-tender process is vitiated in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 8314 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23038 of 2013) - - - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - T.S. Thakur and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. For the Appellant: Gaurang Kanth, Rajeev Yada and P. Parmeswaran, Advs. For the Respondent: Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli and Sunando Raha, Advs. JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7993/2012 whereby it has set aside the decision of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. 6. The Respondents then sent a legal notice dated 13.12.2012 to the Appellant-Corporation but they did not receive any reply to the same. However, on the same day Appellant-Corporation issued a fresh NIT No. 24 EE-(M-WZ)-U/TC/2012-2013 dated 13.12.2012 inviting fresh bids from the eligible persons. 7. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of earlier tender i.e., NIT No. 21 dated 15.11.2012 vide corrigendum dated 30.11.2012, both the Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. 8. The High Court allowed the Respondents' writ petition holding that the process adopted by the Appellant-Corporation in coming to the conclusion that the rates offered were high was faulty. The High Court on that basis set aside and quashed the decision of the Appellant-Corporation dated 30.11.2012, regarding cancellation of its earlier tender and directed the Appellant-Corporation to process the bids submitted by both the Respondents in accordance with law in pursuance of the NIT No. 21 dated 15.11.2012. It also quashed the subsequent tender process pursuant to NIT No. 24 dated 13.12.2012. Hence, this appeal is filed by the Appellant-Corporation challenging the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me works. This decision of the High Court is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside in this Appeal. 13. It was further argued by him that the High Court while passing the judgment and order has erroneously ignored the fact that the State Government is the guardian of public finance and the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender submitted to it is vested with the State Government, provided Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not violated in that process. He urged that the Appellant-Corporation had not violated the said provision of the Constitution of India by cancelling its earlier tender vide corrigendum dated 30.11.2012 and issuing tender notice dated 13.12.2012 for the same works in the public interest. The Appellant-Corporation had taken the decision regarding cancellation of the tender in the best interest of the Corporation to get the best price and also to save public money. Therefore, the same could not be termed as an arbitrary decision of the Appellant-Corporation. 14. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that the High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Courts do not sit in appeal over the commercial decisions taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch higher than the rates at which similar works were awarded in favour of successful bidders in the recent past is also not tenable in law as the tenders issued for similar works were issued at abnormally low rates and the same could not be a bench mark for comparison with the rates offered by both the Respondents in relation to the tender for the works which have been cancelled by the Appellant-Corporation. She urged that the High Court was right in passing the judgment in favour of the Respondents for reasons that were valid and cogent. Hence, this Court need not exercise its appellate jurisdiction to annul the impugned order as there is no miscarriage of justice in the case on hand. She therefore, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 17. With reference to the above rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, this Court has carefully examined the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The High Court has quashed the decision of the Appellant-Corporation dated 30.11.2012, regarding cancellation of its earlier tender without there being any finding to the effect of any malafide intention on the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 13.12.2012 was issued afresh by it for getting the same works done through successful contractors. e) The High Court has erroneously quashed the Corporation's decision of cancelling its earlier tender notice vide corrigendum dated 30.11.2012 on the wrong assumption that the concerned department of the Appellant-Corporation has prepared the justification of rates but in reality the same were never prepared by the concerned department of the Appellant-Corporation as the rates received from both the Respondents were much higher than the rates at which similar works were awarded in favour of the successful bidders by it in the recent past. f) Further, the High Court has failed to consider another important fact that the Government being guardian of public finance it has right to refuse the lowest or any other tender bid or bids submitted by the bidders to it provided its decision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable as it amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant-Corporation's decision in cancelling its earlier tender is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the High Court did not find any mal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
