Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 68 (MP)

Aman Traders v. State of M. P.

2013-01-10

M.C.GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2013
JUDGMENT : Shantanu Kemkar, J.:- Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 17-12-2012, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 11193/2012. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that aggrieved by the Notice Inviting Tender (for short "the NIT"), dated 18-11-2012 issued by the 2nd respondent for advance sale of 'Tendupatta' in the year 2013 the appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition raising his grievance that in the said tender notice no upset price has been quoted. According to the petitioner, in the absence of upset price there would be no healthy competition and there would be uncertainty in the process of offering the price by the bidders. The further grievance of the petitioner is that non-mention of the upset price in the NIT is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in State of M.P. and another Vs. Raj Kumar and others, M.C.C. No. 326/1990, decided on 14-12-1990. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noticing that no statutory provision of law making it mandatory in the case of 'tendupatta' tender to quote the upset price was shown. 5. As regards the petitioner's reliance on the order passed in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Rajkumar and others (supra), we find that in the aforesaid case, the Division Bench had observed that the State should devise the procedure of norms of minimum acceptable offers before inviting the tenders so that the disposal of Tendu leaves at reasonable rates is not left to chance and speculation in future which may involve loss of public revenue in spite of retenders. From these observations, it cannot be said that the Division Bench had directed to disclose the upset price in the NIT itself. In the circumstances, in our view by not disclosing the upset price in the NIT the second respondent has not violated any direction of this Court issued in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Rajkumar and others (supra). 6. It has been stated by Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent that there is an elaborate mechanism for fixation of upset price which takes into account the sale rate during last five years, sale rate in the preceding year and upset price in the preceding year. Rajkumar and others (supra). 6. It has been stated by Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent that there is an elaborate mechanism for fixation of upset price which takes into account the sale rate during last five years, sale rate in the preceding year and upset price in the preceding year. Taking into consideration these factors and market trend, the upset price is fixed on the basis of a formula every year. The upset prices so prepared prior to invitation of tenders are approved by the Chairman of the second respondent. It has been stated that mechanism of the disposal of Tendu leaves is absolutely fair and transparent and there is no room for any arbitrariness and loss to the public exchequer. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Sadhu Ram, AIR 2008 SC 2411 , decided on 8-4-2008 in which the Supreme Court had observed that there is no unfairness in not disclosing the reserve price as it is common knowledge that when the reserved price is disclosed, the bidders often form cartels and bid at or around the disclosed price, though the market price is much higher. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition challenging the action of the second respondent in not disclosing the upset price in the NIT. 8. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.