Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1460 (MP)

Saroj Enterprises v. State of M. P.

2014-11-12

RAJENDRA MENON, SANJAY YADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. Challenging the action of the respondents in issuing a tender vide Annexure P-14 on 30.10.2014 calling for the offers in the matter of giving a contract for certain electricity work in the District of Chhatarpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is the case of petitioner that initially for the same work respondent No.4 issued a tender notice on 6.6.2014 vide Annexure P-1. The offers and documents were to be submitted by 3.7.2014 and they were to be opened on the same day at about 4 p.m. It is said that in pursuance to this notice Annexure P-1 petitioner submitted his offer with documents much before the due date i.e. 3.7.2014. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the tender was opened on 3.7.2014 the petitioner’s offer being the lowest was proposed to be accepted. 3. According to the petitioner it is said that his offer was accepted and thereafter no agreement was executed, instead a show cause notice Annexure P-2 was issued to the petitioner on 21.7.2014 pointing out various discrepancies in the proposal/offer submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have submitted his explanation to the same along with justification for the irregularities pointed out and it is now the grievance of the petitioner that without finalizing his case a fresh tender has been issued, which is unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued in detail and by referring to show cause notice and to the explanation submitted to the show cause tried to emphasize that there is no illegality or irregularity in the offer initially made by the petitioner and therefore without deciding his claim to award the work in pursuance to the first offer, action taken for re-tendering is unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for State Government submitted that no legal right accrues to the petitioner as the offer submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of the notice Annexure P-1 was never accepted, it is said that no concluded contract has come into effect. It was pointed out that even before the offer made was accepted certain complaints were received with regard to the petitioner and therefore show cause notice was issued and after considering petitioner’s explanation the State Government thought it appropriate to issue a fresh tender. It was pointed out that even before the offer made was accepted certain complaints were received with regard to the petitioner and therefore show cause notice was issued and after considering petitioner’s explanation the State Government thought it appropriate to issue a fresh tender. Accordingly it is a case where no illegality or illegality has been committed by the respondents and as no legal right accrues to the petitioner by submitting tender, therefore no interference be made by this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and we have perused the record. We find that there is no acceptance of the offer submitted by the petitioner after the tender notice was issued on 6.6.2014, nor is there any concluded contract, merely because the petitioner has submitted the offer and his offer was the lowest, there cannot be an assumption that the offer submitted by the petitioner was accepted. Acceptance of offer and entering into the contract has to be by a positive act which includes acknowledgment of the same in writing and execution of an agreement. There is no document or material available on record to show that even though the petitioner’s offer, was the lowest the same was accepted and the contract entered into. It is therefore clear that even before the first tender was accepted certain complaints were received, wherein more than 6 illegalities in the offer submitted by the petitioner with various allegations were pointed out and the respondent even though issued a show cause notice, but instead of finalization of the first tender, took a safe mode of re-tendering the work. In doing so we see that no error has been committed by the respondents in issuing retendering to avoid further complication and controversy. No legal right which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus is available to the petitioner. There being no concluded contract the petitioner does not have a legal right existing in his favour. As no legal right accrues before acceptance of tender and before execution of the contract if a fresh tender is issued, there is no illegality in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we see no case for issuing any mandamus in this petition. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. ...................