Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 723 (ALL)

Ranjeet Kumar v. Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika

1990-07-31

VIRENDRA KUMAR

body1990
ORDER Virendra Kumar, J. - This writ petition is directed against the non-acceptance of the highest tender of the petitioner for the Theka realising Tehbazari for parking vehicles at certain places within the local limits of the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika for the year 1990-91 and quashing the impugned Theka granted in favour of opposite party No. 3. 2. Opposite Party No. 3 Sushil Kumar was given the Theka for realisation of Tehbazari for parking vehicles for the years 1989-90. The period of Theka expired on 31-3-1990. By virtue of the advertisement dated 28-3-90, contained in Annexure 1, Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika Opposite Party No. I invited tenders for the years 1990-91. The petitioner and one more person submitted separate tenders. According to the petitioner he has filed the documents required with the tender application. Hence his tender should be accepted and he should be given the Theka but the Opposite Party No. I instead of accepting the highest tender of the petitioner for Rs. 1,61,000/-, decided to give the Theka to the Opposite Party No. 3 for the years 1990-91 on the consideration of Rs. 67,000/- only. The Opposite Party No. 3 had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Opposite Party No. 1 to restrain it from giving the Theka to any one else till 30th August, 1990 in which case a temporary injunction was granted to the Opposite Party No. 3 against Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika. 3. The Opposite Party No. 3 pressed for extension of the period of his Theka for the Tehbazari for the years 1990-91 for the reasons that the Theka for the year 1989-90 was actually given to him very late and not from due date, the rates-for realisation of Tetioazari for different vehicles were reduced to the half during the pendency of Theka which were contrary to the rates originally allowed under the terms of Theka and there was late handing over of the site to Opposite Party after removing the unauthorised occupants. and submersion of rain water. The Executive Committee of the Opposite Party No. I thereupon decided to grant Theka for the years 1990-91 to the Opposite Party No. 3 on his depositing half of the amount of the Theka for the year 1989-90 plus 25% extra on it. and submersion of rain water. The Executive Committee of the Opposite Party No. I thereupon decided to grant Theka for the years 1990-91 to the Opposite Party No. 3 on his depositing half of the amount of the Theka for the year 1989-90 plus 25% extra on it. The Executive Committee of Opposite Party No. I did not accept any of the tenders which were furnished in pursuance of the advertisement dated 28-3-90. The highest tender of the petitioner as well as the advertisement dated 28-3-90, were, thus, ignored and rejected by the Executive Committee. This is borne out from the letter of the Assistant Nagar Adhikari of the Opposite Party No. I dated 3-5-90, contained in Annexure A filed with the counter-affidavit. 4. Thereafter on 5-5-90 an agreement was signed between the Up Nagar Adhikhari an. the Opposite Party No. 3 for grant of Theka to the Opposite Party No. 3 for the years 1990-91 in accordance with the decision of the Executive Committee of the Opposite Party No. I which, as mentioned above, was in favour of Opposite Party No. 3. 5. Issue of advertisement dated 28-8-90 for tenders was simply an invitation to make offer by furnishing of tenders for the Theka. The petitioner has put forward his offer by furnishing the tender with requisite documents. This is a clear term of the advertisement inviting the tenders that it was the Executive Committee of Opposite Party No. I which had full right to accept or reject a tender. In the instant case the Executive Committee which had reserved to itself the right to accept or not to accept the tender, found-favour with the grounds (mentioned above) on which the Opposite Party No. 3 claimed continuance of the Theka in his favour for the year 1990-91 in order to make good the loss he had suffered on taking the Theka for the years 1989-90. In other words the Executive Committee could ignore any tender which means all tenders submitted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 28-3-90. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision of the Executive Council not to accept any fresh tender for the Theka of 1990-91 and to give the Theka to the Opposite Party No. 3 on payment of half of the amount of the Theka for the year 1989-90 plus 25% extra on it, was unreasonable or arbitrary. 6. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision of the Executive Council not to accept any fresh tender for the Theka of 1990-91 and to give the Theka to the Opposite Party No. 3 on payment of half of the amount of the Theka for the year 1989-90 plus 25% extra on it, was unreasonable or arbitrary. 6. The case of Sri Prakash Vishwakarma v. Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, 1987 UP Local Bodies and Educational Cases 129 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite distinguishable for the reasons that in that case the petitioner was the highest bidder but his bid was rejected, the auction was cancelled, re auction was ordered without making inquiry into the complaints made about that auction by a few bidders who had offered lower bids and the Court had found that the cancellation of the auction was without good and sufficient reasons. In the instant case the grounds raised by Opposite Party No. 3 were considered good and sufficient for continuance of the Theka in his favour for the year 1990-91. It is obvious that the continuance of Theka in his favour was to make good the loss which he suffered in the course of the Theka for years 1989-90 for which Opposite Party No. I was to a great extent responsible. Such grounds did not exist in the case of Sri Prakash Vishwakarma (Supra). 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was obligatory on the part of the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 to take decision on the tenders received up to the fixed time and immediately after obtaining the same the petitioner's tender being the highest was b6und to be accepted. My attention has not been invited to any clause in the advertisement where under this could be said to be obligatory. As already mentioned, the final authority to accept or not to accept or in other words ignore the tender was reserved for the Executive Committee. It was not bound to accept the highest bid nor it was prohibited from giving consideration and to appreciate the ground on which the Opposite Party No. 3 was claiming continuance of Theka in his favour for the year 1990-91 to compensate for the loss to which he was put due to the auctions for which he was not at all responsible. 8. 8. The petitioner has challenged also the passing of interim injunction order in the Civil Suit of Opposite Party No. 3 on two grounds. First ground is that no such order of restrain can be issued in respect of an auction intended to be made or to give effect to any auction made by the Government. But, in the instant case the tenders were invited not by the Government. Secondly, the relief of perpetual injunction in that case is barred by Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, hence no interim injunction could validly be issued. It is a controversial point and the Civil Court in the suit is yet to decide whether the suit is barred or not. The matter is pending consideration before it. 9. In any case, the petitioner has the alternative remedy of filing a civil suit for the alleged breach against the Opposite Parties. 10. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is liable to fail and is hereby dismissed. No order is made as to costs.