Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 324 (MP)

Maxima Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M. P.

2014-03-24

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against acceptance of bid submitted by respondent No.4. 2. Excise Department invited bids for grant of licences to sell country and foreign liquor at various places including Group No.1 country liquor shop Kamlaganj, Karondi and Foreign liquor shop AB Road Shivpuri. Earlier in two rounds, nobody submitted tenders. Thereafter in third round, respondent No.4 submitted his bid and it was accepted. 3. Petitioner challenged acceptance of bid of respondent No.4 on the ground that he wanted to submit his bid and when he had been going to deposit the tender form and amount, persons of respondent No.4 stopped the representative of the petitioner and they had snatched the tender document, hence, the petitioner could not submit his tender. It is further submitted by the petitioner that there was single tender of respondent No.4 and it was below the offset price, hence, it has wrongly been accepted. 4. Respondents State in its return pleaded that earlier two times the Department invited tenders, however, nobody submitted its tender. In third time, only respondent No.4 submitted its bid which was accepted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in this regard. The State further denied the fact that documents of the petitioner were snatched by any other person. 5. Same facts have been pleaded by respondent No.4. 6. Petitioner, along with the writ petition, filed photo copy of a demand draft and pleaded that the petitioner had demand draft and he also had copy of the tender form. In the demand draft (Annexure P/5) place Shivpuri has been mentioned separately. Apart from this, aforesaid demand draft was issued by the Bank at the instance of Avinash Chalana and Company and not at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner himself filed copy of the letter dated 25th February, 2014 written by Director of M/s Avinash Chalana and Company to the Chief Manager of State Bank of India. It is mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the demand draft was missing, hence, payment be not made. 7. There is a dispute whether the petitioner had real intention to submit tender. Earlier on two occasions, the petitioner did not submit his tender. The allegation of the petitioner is that some persons had snatched the tender form of the petitioner prima facie has not been found proved because the Police did not register any FIR. 7. There is a dispute whether the petitioner had real intention to submit tender. Earlier on two occasions, the petitioner did not submit his tender. The allegation of the petitioner is that some persons had snatched the tender form of the petitioner prima facie has not been found proved because the Police did not register any FIR. Assistasnt Commissioner, Excise, in his letter dated 23.2.2004, copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/2 informed the Collector that no incident had happened in the premises of the office of District Excise Officer, Shivpuri in regard to snatching of the documents as alleged by the petitioner in this petition. It is further mentioned in the letter that in accordance with the tender procedure, the tender box was kept at the office upto 1.30 noon and thereafter it was sealed at 1.30 noon in presence of representatives of the tenderers and officers of the Department and a Panchanama was also prepared. In the Panchanama, no fact was mentioned that the petitioner had made any complaint to the Excise officer/employees in regard to snatching of his tender form. Tender of respondent No.4 has been accepted. It is also a fact that earlier on two occasions nobody submitted bid and at the third time bid of respondent No.4 was accepted, although it was a single tender. In such circumstances, it could not be said that respondents/State has adopted an arbitrary procedure or any unfair advantage has been provided to respondent No.4 because earlier two times bids were advertised and tenders were invited, but nobody submitted tender. In this view of the matter, action of the respondents State could not be said to be arbitrary and illegal. 8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon judgments in the cases of Michigan Rubber (India ) Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , and Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOCL v. Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani, (2012) 13 SCC 260 and submitted that action of the respondents in accepting the bid of respondent No.4 is contrary to law. 9. Prima facie, we have found that the petitioner did not submit his tender form, hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge award of contract in favour of respondent No.4. 9. Prima facie, we have found that the petitioner did not submit his tender form, hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge award of contract in favour of respondent No.4. Apart from this, from the facts of the case mentioned above, in our opinion, action of the respondents/State could not be said to be arbitrary. It is also a fact that the petitioner has remedy of appeal against acceptance of tender under Rule III (5) of the Rules made under the provisions of section 62 of the MP Excise Act. 10. Considering all the facts of the case, no case is made out for admitting this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed at motion hearing stage itself. No order as to costs.