Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 318 (MP)

Satsangi Traders Private Limted v. State of MP

2014-03-21

RAJENDRA MENON, VIMLA JAIN

body2014
Judgment: Petitioner in pursuance to the liquor policy formulated by the State Government for the Excise Year 2014-2015, in accordance to the Notification dated 9.1.2014 - Annexure P/1, submitted an offer with regard to his right to claim certain group of liquor shops known as Hata Group of Liquor Shops in District Damoh. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the financial bid submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3, as certain clerical error has occurred in indicating the offer in words and in figures, his bid has been rejected and it is proposed to be granted to respondent No.5. Interalia contending that the provisions of the tender conditions as contained in the Notification dated 9.1.2014 and Clause 16 and various sub-clauses thereof, particularly Clause 16.17, permits correction of certain clerical error and without permitting the error to be corrected, the tender is being finalized, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, took us through the documents and the material available on record, to emphasize that the clerical error committed by the petitioner is liable to be corrected and the financial bid of the petitioner considered for evaluation in accordance to the terms and conditions of the tender document. It is stated that only on the ground of certain clerical error, petitioner's claim has been ousted from consideration. 4. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on advance notice, points out that the petitioner has already represented to the Excise Commissioner and as the Excise Commissioner is competent to deal with the matter, for the present interference by this Court is not called for Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the work in accordance to the tender is to be granted on 1.4.2014, and if a decision is not taken before the said date, right will accrue in favour of respondent No.5 and the petitioner shall be adversely affected. 5. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and considering the contentions as were advanced, for the present we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 - Excise Commissioner to take a decision in the matter of the grievance as canvassed by the petitioner. 5. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and considering the contentions as were advanced, for the present we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 - Excise Commissioner to take a decision in the matter of the grievance as canvassed by the petitioner. It is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents before respondent No.2 by 24.3.2014, respondent No.2 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and if required, after hearing respondent No.5 in the matter, shall pass an order by 29.3.2014 in the matter. If passing of the order by 29.3.2014 is not possible, respondent No.2 shall pass such orders which will not adversely affect the right of the petitioner after 1.4.2014. 6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules today.