BHAIYALAL SHUKLA Vs. CHAIRMAN SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SINGRAULI DISTT SIDHI M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is lamentable that even after trend-setting pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the famous 'Airport' case in Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, the 'State' and their authorities falling under Art.12 of the Constitution are still oblivious to their obligations under Art.14 of the Constitution. The legal position is now settled that the government no longer enjoys absolute discretion to enter into contract with anyone it likes. The State has to choose the party in a non-discriminatory manner. The State must act fairly and make a choice of the contracting party by affording equal opportunity to all contenders by examining their claims fairly. The present case is an instance where the respondent Special Area Development Authority, Singroli (hereinafter referred to as the 'authority'), constituted under M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivash Adhiniyam, 1973, can be said to be guilty of deviating with impunity from the standards it had laid down in its tender conditions and in exercise of its powers in giving benefits of awarding contracts to the respondents Nos.3 and 4 arbitrarily and in discriminatory manner excluding the petitioner as contractor.

(2.) The facts to justify the greviance of the petitioner, in necessary details may now be stated. The authority which is a local body and undoubtedly 'State' within the definition of Art.12 of the Constitution of India issued a tender notice (Annexure-A) dated 28-3-1989 by which the tenders were invited for construction of bituminous macadam road 7.00 Kms. with the assistance of automatic power unit. Two essential conditions of tender, relevant for the purpose of this petition, were that the construction of the road had to be done by automatic power unit and the conditional tenders could not be accepted. The estimated cost or the work was Rs. 78 lacs and 67 thousand. In pursuance of the above tender notice, tenders of the following contractors were received with rates offered shown against their names : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_365_AIR(MP)_1990Html1.htm</FRM> The rates offered by the petitioner were lowest. Yet his tender was not accepted by the tender committee for reasons stated in the return of the authority respondents No.1 and 2 as under :

(3.) In paragraph 7 of the return of the authority, further reason for rejecting the tender of the petitioner has been stated as under:-