S.K.VERMA, J. - (1.) The petitions through this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-3-1994 issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4 and for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to accept the only tender of the petitioner holding it as valid.
(2.) The petitioner had been operating the contract for cycle/scooter stand at Aligarh Junction Railway station for the last four years. His contract was to expire on 23-3-1994. Meanwhile on 9-12-1993, a tender notice was issued inviting tenders for the contract for the next two years, i.e. 1994-95 and 1995-96. Three persons offered their tenders, namley, H.K. Dubey, N.K. Singh, respondent No.4 and Mukul Kumar, petitioner. Their offers were Rs.1,29,000.00 Rs.2,97,000.00, and Rs.1,47,000.00 respectively. The tender notices required deposit of earnest money and also certain documents. The petitioner claims that the tender notice (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) mentioned that no tender will be considered if it is not accompanied with documents mentioned in the notice. The other two persons did not submit the documents. Only the petitioner submitted the documents also along with his tender. The tenders were opened on 18-1-1994 and in presence of all the tenderers, it became known that only the petitioner's tender was valid. However, through the impugned order dated 23-3-1994 the tender of respondent No. 4 was accepted and he was allowed time to furnish the documents mentioned in the tender notice as also some other documents. The petitioner claims that since only his tender was valid, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 could not award the contract to any body else. This action of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 is discriminatory and is hit by and is violative of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The impugned order has also been challenged on the basis of mala fides. The order has also been challenged on the ground that extension of the opportunity to furnish documents was allowed to respondent No.4 without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and, therefore, the action of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 was discriminatory and was in colourable exercise of powers.
(3.) In their counter affidavit, respondents Nos.1 to 3 have admitted that the petitioner was having a contract of the Cycle/ Scooter Stand which expired on 23-3-1994 and that tenders were invited according to notice dated 9-12-1993, and that the tenders of the other two tenderers did not accompany the documents required. However, the contention of the respondents No.1 to 3 is that although it was mentioned in the tender notice that the tender was liable to be rejected if the documents mentioned in the tender notice were not submitted, the tender form and the instructions to the tenderer attached along with the tender form mentioned clearly that if the receipt of the deposit of the earnest money was not furnished along with the tender form, the tender shall not be considered but with regard to documents, it was mentioned that the tender was liable to be rejected if these documents were not attached along with the tender form. Thus, submission of documents was not a condition-precedent and it could be relaxed in so far as the tender was liable to be rejected and it could be rejected or it could not be rejected on that ground. The respondents No.1 to 3 also stated in the counter affidavit that the tenders were placed before a Tender committee which advised that the tender of the respondent No.4 should be accepted and, therefore, the competent authority accepted the tender of the respondent No.4 permitting him to submit the four documents mentioned in the tender notice along with certain other documents such as money receipt showing the deposit of Rs.83,625.00 including security deposit and one month's licence fee and Rs.49,500.00 which was 1/6th of the tender amount. It has been contended that there was no discrimination and the Committee considered the relevant factors along with public interest in awarding the contract to respondent No.4. The principles of law were followed, there being no statutory rules requiring the tender to submit these documents. The conditions were imposed regarding these documents, only in order to safeguard the realisation of the tender amount and if the respondent No.4 is even now not in a position to furnish these documents his tender is liable to be rejected and the tender of the petitioner may be accepted or the competent authority may reject all the tenders and invite fresh tenders. Thus, there is only a provisional acceptance of the tender of the respondent No.4 on the advice of the Tender Committee which has taken into consideration the interest of the administration and public interest. The action taken by the respondents No.1 to 3 is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.;