MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment and order dt. 4. 2. 1999 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586/99 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed in limine.
(2.) THE appellants are the contractors and they had been given contract by Nagar Nigam Jaipur, respondent No. 1 for removal of garbage from the garbage collection points of Nagar Nigam Jaipur on the basis of tenders invited from general public by way of publication in various newspapers for the year 1996-97. In response to the said advertisement, the appellants had submitted their tenders as per terms & conditions of the tender notice and after due scrutiny of their tenders, they were given contract for removal of garbage and transportation. THE work contract for the year 1996-97 was extended for the next year i. e. 1997-98 (vide Annexure-3) to the writ petition and again for the year 1998-99 (vide Annexure-4) to the writ petition with 10% increase of rates. The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that for the year 1999-2000 the committee which was constituted by the Jaipur Nagar Nigam, respondent No. 1 had recommended the names of the appellants for extension of work order and even the Chairman of the committee had also recommended their case for extension. This was in view of the fact that rates quoted by the appellants were lowest but still respondent No. 4, Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur was adamant in not complying with the recommendations of the committee and instead called for another tender. It was submitted that since the appellants had taken the loan for arranging the trollies for collecting garbage etc. and in view of the financial implications they had been adversely subjected to loss. , The learned Single Judge was of the view that since no monopoly could be created in favour of the appellants for all times to come hence, the appellants could not claim statutory right for extension of their tenders from time to time. He was further of the view that since no legal or statutory right accrues to the appellants for the work order for the year 1999-2000 to be awarded to them only, hence it was not open to the appellants to insist upon the respondent-Jaipur Nagar Nigam not to invite fresh tenders from the general public now, or in future as the Jaipur Nagar Nigam could not be restrained to do so. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine. Being aggrieved, the appellants have come up before this Court by way of the instant appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and the legal position on the subject.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended at the bar that keeping in view the (a) past good performance of the appellants as contractor; (b) that their work order for removal of garbage was extended twice i. e. for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99, Annexure 3 & 4, respectively; (c) that the Chairman of the Committee (Health Sanitation) had very strongly recommended the case of the appellants for extension of work contract to the Director Local Bodies, respondent No. 3 and to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, respondent No. 4, the appellants were entitled to be given the work contract for the year 1999-2000 as well. Mrs. Naina Saraf further contended that appellants had already purchased the equipment for better and speedy work for which they had incurred loan on the basis of the recommendations of the Chairman of the Committee and they were conveyed assurance by the then Mayor of Jaipur Nagar Nigam that their work contract will be extended for successive three years. The said recommendations are said to have been approved by the Zonal Commissioner of Jaipur Nagar Nigam and thereafter the matter was referred to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. It is alleged that Mayor of the Nigam had advised the appellants that if they want to participate in the tender they will have to deposit draft of Rs. 2,58,000/-but, inspite of several representations made by the appellants to the respondents individually, no action was taken in the matter nor any payment has been made to them. Finally, the appellants made a representation to the State Government on 29. 12. 1998 but that too was not given any effect. Hence, being aggrieved of the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents, the appellants (petitioners) had preferred writ petition before this Court which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4. 2. 1999 and being aggrieved of the said order, the appellants have now come up before this Court by way of instant appeal. Mr. PC. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by Mrs. Naina Saraf learned counsel for the appellants on the grounds inter-alia that though the appellants were given contract for removal of garbage on the basis of tenders approved for the year 1996-97 and which was extended twice for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 but, the Nigam was of the view that tenders should be invited from the general public afresh on the basis of the administrative decision taken by the Committee. Consequently, the tenders were invited afresh on 5. 1. 1999, 7. 1. 1999 and 2. 2. 1999 respectively, on the basis of publication made in various Newspapers. Learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that there was nothing binding on the Jaipur Nagar Nigam not to advertise the tenders afresh and to consider the work performance of the contractors-appellants. Hence, no statutory or legal right has been created in favour of the appellants for all times to come. Correspondingly, contractual obligations do not create any vested, statutory or legal right in favour of the appellants. In support of his contention, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur vs. M/s. Devasans Private Ltd. (1) and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of H. P. vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and Ors. (2) ;