Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 894 (ALL)

Maa Vaishno Timbers v. State of U. P.

2018-04-12

ABDUL MOIN, VIKRAM NATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anuj Garg, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing counsel representing State-respondents, Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel representing respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4. 2. Annexure No. 2 is E-Tender auction notice dated 19.03.2018 issued by the office of Nagar Nigam, Ayodhya for awarding work for collection of parking fee for two zones namely Faizabad Zone and Ayodhya Zone. The present dispute relates to Faizabad Zone only. Petitioner was one of the bidders who had submitted his tender. All the tenders received were opened on 27.03.2018. The tabulation chart prepared of all the bids received along with respective details is filed as annexure No. 4. The petitioner's bid is incorporated at serial No. 4. The rate offered by the petitioner is the highest as per the said chart (annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) as it indicates an amount of Rs. 2,51,22,000/- (Two crore fifty one lakh twenty two thousand only). 3. Earlier the petitioner through the proprietor had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 8756 (M/B) of 2018; Ravi Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. and others. In the said writ petition, petitioner had prayed for firstly quashing the tender notice dated 19.03.2018 with respect to Faizabad Zone or in the alternative to quash condition No. 9 of the E-Tender notice dated 19.03.2018. The other prayed made was for a direction to the respondents to accept the E-Tender of the petitioner by ignoring condition No. 9. The said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 28.03.2018 (annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the award of tender for running the Tempo/Taxi/Bus Stand fee collection for the Faizabad Zone awarded in favour of respondent No. 4. The next prayer is made for award of the contract to the petitioner as he was the highest bidder. Third prayer is made for quashing the entire tendering process for the Faizabad Zone for collection of parking fee. 5. The next prayer is made for award of the contract to the petitioner as he was the highest bidder. Third prayer is made for quashing the entire tendering process for the Faizabad Zone for collection of parking fee. 5. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 4 in the tabulation chart prepared of all the bids received (contained in annexure No. 4), the condition No. 9 apparently stood waived only for the said reason that his bid was considered. He further submits that since the bid of the petitioner was highest, there is no reason why the award of the said tender should not have been given to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Sri Ravi Singh submitted that condition No. 9 was never waived The corrigendum issued as annexure No. 3 related only to the other zone i.e., Ayodhya Zone. He further submitted that it was not a two stage bid so as to test the technical bid first and thereafter the financial bid were to be opened of the bidders who had successfully qualified in the technical bid and according to Sri Ravi Singh it was a one stage bid opening and, therefore, all the bids which were received by the last date within time were opened and the chart was prepared and thereafter, the other conditions were checked. He further submitted that upon checking it was found that the petitioner does not fulfill the condition No. 9 as such his bid was not considered any further. He further submitted that the award given to respondent No. 4 was not at any lesser price but in fact at a higher price as upon negotiations, he increased the bid to Rs. 2,55,00,000/- and as such no loss of revenue has been caused to the Nagar Nigam. He further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the condition No. 9 of the E-Tender notice, apparently has no cause to file this petition and claim the relief as prayed. 7. 2,55,00,000/- and as such no loss of revenue has been caused to the Nagar Nigam. He further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the condition No. 9 of the E-Tender notice, apparently has no cause to file this petition and claim the relief as prayed. 7. Having considered the submission we find that there is no issue that the petitioner does not fulfill the condition No. 9 which continued to remain a condition of the tender without any alteration as such his bid could not have been considered as the Nagar Nigam could not have deviated from the terms and conditions published in the tender notice. Further what we find is that respondent No. 4 who has been awarded the work has already increased his bid for which there was a provision for negotiation and no loss is being caused to the Nagar Nigam. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the process awarding the contract to respondent No. 4. 8. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.