- (1.) THIS petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i) By an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner by receiving remaining tender amount in persuance of tender notice dated 27-10-2010(Annexure-1). ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner in compliance of tender form submitted by him. iii) any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of tender notice published on 2nd July, 2010 for running the underground parking at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, the petitioner purchased the tender forms on 15th November, 2010 and participated in the bidding. The petitioner's offer of Rs. 16.41 lacs was the highest bid. COUNSEL for the petitioner stated that despite the petitioner's highest bid, the respondents did not grant the contract in question to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Laxman Lal Dangi versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) 2011(3) 788 to contend that as the highest bider, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of contract in issue. On notice, reply has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein it has been stated that as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, as per condition no. 7, the Member Secretary of the Society had reserved his right to reject any tender without disclosing any reason. Further as per condition no. 27, the Member Secretary had full rights to accept/reject any tender without disclosing any reason and also was not bound to accept the tender of highest rate. It was further stated that rule 61 of the General Financial and Accounts Rules duly authorized to re-invitation of bids in the event of receipt of insufficient number of tenders in pursuance to a tender notice. In the present case, in pursuance to the tender notice only 7 tenders were received as compared to the 15 tenders received in pursuance to the earlier tender notice. Out of these 7 tenders, three tenders were rejected on technical grounds and there remained only four tenders to be considered. Out of these four tenders, the highest tender submitted was for Rs. 16.41 lacs as against the highest tender of Rs. 40,11,000/- received in pursuance to the earlier tender notice. Therefore, keeping in view the potential huge loss of revenue to the State, it was decided to re-invite the tender for underground parking stand in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. In the course of hearing today, counsel for the respondent further pointed out that subsequently a fresh tender for parking facility in the basement of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur was issued on 18th June, 2011, which was modified on 31st July, 2012. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said NIT, the wife of the petitioner Ms. Poonam Sharma also participated and offered a rate of Rs. 14.61 lacs. It is submitted that one Bablu son of Rigasuddin in pursuance to the NIT dated 18th June, 2011 modified on 31st July, 2012 made an offer of 24.81 lacs. The highest bid of Bablu has been accepted vide order dated 8th August, 2012 and Bablu granted the contract for a period of one year. It is submitted that subsequently, Bablu has deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with the Rajasthan Medi Care Relief Society the tenderer and is in the process of depositing the remainder as required. In view of the aforesaid facts, to my mind the writ petition has no force. Even otherwise, the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Star Enterprises ETC versus City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 280; has held that the highest bidder has no indefeasible right to grant of a contract and has only right of fair consideration. From the facts on record and reply filed by the counsel for the respondents, it transpires that the highest bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it did not bring in the expected revenue. This fact stands vindicated from the subsequent tender bringing in an additional Rs. 8 lacs over the offer made by the petitioner. So far as the judgment of Laxman lal Dangi (supra) cited by the petitioner is concerned, the facts of the said case are wholly inapposite to the facts of the case of the petitioner and consequently, the citation relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail to him. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no force and the same stands dismissed. ;