CHAMPA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
S.K.MAL LODHA,J. -
(1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by the petitioner Champalal, praying that the temporary sanction (Anx.3) made in favour of Banshilal (non -petitioder Na.4), may be quashed and' non -petitioners No. 1 to 3 (State of Rajasthan the Excise Commissioner Rajasthan, Panchawati, Udaipur and the District Excise Officer, Udaipur respectively), may be restrained from proceeding to award a contract to non -petitioner No. 4 and further from taking further steps in the matter of awarding the contract to non -petitioner No. 4. A direction has also been sought against the aforesaid non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 to determine the question of awarding the contract afresh after negotiations with the tenderers including the petitioners or in such other manner as may be considered appropriate, i.e. by fresh tender or auction.
(2.)THE petitioner carries on the business of vending country liquor in the name of Champalal and party. State of Rajajthan (non -petitioner No I invited tenders for giving the contract (licence for exclusive privilege for selling country liquor for the years 1984 -85 and 1985 -86 for 85 shops situate within Udaipur City Circle. The last date of submission of tenders was January 16, 1984. |The petitioner submitted his tender for the shop named Mullalalie. He has submitted the copy of the tender marked as Anx. 1. Banshilal and Manoharlal (non -petitioners No. 4 and 5 respectively) also submitted tenders for the licence of selling country liquor for the shops situate within Udaipur City Circle. Banshilal hnd submitted the tender for the shops known as Chetak Circle for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. He also submitted tender for Surajpol she p for a sum of Rs. 26 lacs Manoharlal and Banshilal are real brothers and live jointly and have joint business. They submitted a tender for the entire group of city shops (I) in the name of Manoharlal for Rs. one crore, ninety two lacs and twelve thousand and (2) in the name of Banshilal for rupees one crore and fifty four lacs. The said tenders were opened on January 17, 1984 Anx. 2 (a photo copy of the tender of Manoharlal) was put on the notice board indicating that Manoharlal's tender has temporarily (provisionally)(jrfsrif) been accepted. The case of the petitioner is that on the same date the Excise Commissioner proceeded to exhibit another notice Anx. 3 showing temporary (provisional) acceptance of the tender of Rs. 1 crore fifty four lacs in the name of Shri Banshilal (non -petitioner No. 4). The petitioner has further stated that that the act of exhibiting the notice (Anx. 3) conveying temporary (provisional) acceptance in favour of Banshilal (non -petitioner No. 4) was in disregard of the conditions of the tender and in breach of the rules relating to the award of contract. Hiving come to know about Anx. 3, the petitioner in a telegram to the Excise Commissioner and other authorities, stated that he is one of the tenderers and in the event of the highest tenderer backing out, he is prepared to negotiate for the award of the contract (exclusive pirvilege) for vending country liquor for the years, 1984 -83 and 1985 -86 and is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lacs by a Demand Draft. A representation was submitted by him reiteratiog that there is a difference of rupees thirty eight lacs and fifty eight thousand in the tender the contract being for two years, the State Government will be put to a loss of about 80 lacs and the petitioner would be deprived of an opportunity to obtain the contract when he is prepared to pay more than rupees one crore fifty four lacs. In the representation, it was mentioned that the petitioner is prepared to negotiate for the award of the contract and offer a sum of Rs. one crore sixty one Lcs and submitted that he may be called for negotiations along with others. As nothing was done despite representation, and the petitioner was not called for negotiations, the petitioner apprehended that the Excise Ccmmissiorier may proceed to award the contract in the name of Banshilal for much lower amount. As the demand of justice made by the petitioner VES denied, he filed the writ petition in this Court on January 24, 1984 for the aforesaid reliefs.
The writ petition was admitted on January 25, 1984 and an ad -interim order was made on the same date to the effect that further proceedings in the matter of award of contract to non -petitioner No. 4 shall be stayed.
(3.)REPLIES to the writ petition, as well as stay petition, were filed on behalf of non -petitioners No. 1 to 3 on February 13, 1984 along with the documents : Exs. R.1 to RV. Reply was also filed by Mr. R. Balia, on behalf of non -petitioner No. 4, on Feb 20, 1984 contesting the writ petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.