Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (9) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ositions by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India to organise the India International Travel Expo Mart (IITEM) for the years 2000,2001 and 2002. There were 12 tenderers who had applied. Out of the 12 tenderers, four were short- listed. The Selection Committee found that all the four tenderers appeared to be equal including experience and other factors. The Committee was of the view that the main criteria for assigning the tender to the most suitable party should be the guarantee of upfront payment to the Ministry of Tourism. It also appears that M/s. Tafcon, the appellant before us, guaranteed the highest upfront payment of Rs.45 lakhs for the three years period as against Rs.39 lakhs of another concern. As far as the writ peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lding the IITEM for the years 2001-2002. Two separate special leave petitions were filed from the decision of the Division Bench - one by the appellant M/s. Tafcon Porjects (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CA No. 2507/2001) and the second by the Un ion of India (CA No.4064/2001). On 3.3.2001 leave was granted in CA No.2507/2001. Notice was directed to be issued on the prayer for interim relief and the operation of the High Court s order was stayed in the meanwhile. This ad interim stay was confirmed on 3.9.2001. Similar orders were passed in CA No.4064/2001. Contempt proceedings had been initiated by respondent No.3 before the High Court against the appellants in both the appeals, inter alia, on the ground that they had continued to advertised IITEM .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... med under Art.77 of the Constitution of India specifically provided for all businesses to be transacted only according to the general or special directions of the Minister in Charge and that there was no order placed on record to show that the Minister had issued any direction to the Secretary permitting him to take a decision with regard to the appointment of an Event Manager . We will assume for the purpose of this judgment that Rule 3 of the Transaction of Business Rules 1961, has been correctly interpreted by the High Court. But we are of the view that the High Court has factually erred in holding that no final decision had been taken in the matter by the Secretary and by the Minister. The records which have been referred to in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, namely, M /s. Tafcon, had been allowed to go ahead with the arrangements and that the Minister (CA T) may kindly approve the action taken. In these circumstances, the first finding of the High Court was factually incorrect. It appears also from the records, as noted by the High Court, that the file had been pending with the Minister for some time and despite expressions of urgency, the Minister did not sign the file since he was busy with elections and other important matters . What the High Court has overlooked is that the relevant file was again placed before the Minister on 30th August, 1999 by the JS FA with a note which stated that Tafcon had been appointed as Event Manager for three years. This was signed by the Minister w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent No.3 had bid pursuant to the tender notice and participated in the proceedings before the Selection Committee. It cannot now take advantage of any alleged vagueness in the tender notice. One further aspect needs clarification, that is, the period of tender notice. It appears fro m the official records which were noted by the High Court that the event was a three year one. The mentioning of the actual years did not limit the period. That is also how the offers of the tenderers were assessed and scrutinised. In any event the respondent No.3 having effectively stopped the operation of the three years period by reason of the writ proceedings before the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant must not be denied the benefit wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates