Abhishek Sood vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):

"(a) That the respondents may please be directed to award the contract to the petitioner being a successful & highest bidder, within some time bound period as the tender is valid only till 31st March, 2022, keeping in view the recommendations made by respondent No.3, who has given the complete details in annexure P­9, which till date has been kept in abeyance by the respondents for some extraneous reasons.

(b) That the respondents may also be directed not to allot the tender to any other person during the pendency of present petition before this Hon'ble Court."

How a non serious bid can wreck havoc leading an unnecessary litigation is best reflected in the instant case.

The respondents invited bids for tenders for allotment of four shops for the period w.e.f.1.6.2021 to 31.3.2022, cafeteria and parking in Saurabh Van Vihar, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

Petitioner submitted his bid and quoted Rs. 18,000/­ towards rent i.e. Rs. 4500/­ per shop for all the four shops alongwith cafeteria and parking area. As regard the cafeteria and parking area, the same was to be allotted to the successful bidder. The petitioner despite being the highest bidder, was not allotted the shops. It is later that the petitioner learnt that the respondents had offered the above mentioned shops to one Santosh Kapoor, whose tender form had already been rejected. The said Santosh Kapoor had offered Rs. 13500/­ per month and later on he had clarified that the same was for all the four shops and not for one shop, meaning thereby the offer of respondent Santosh Kapoor would work out to be Rs. 3375/­ per month, per shop.

In the reply filed by the respondents they have not denied the factual aspects and have only referred to some provisions of Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017, applicability of which to the facts of the instant case is beyond our comprehension.

Once respondent Santosh Kapoor had clarified that his bid for Rs. 13,500/­ was not for one shop but for four shops, then in accordance with the terms of the auction, the same had to be allotted to the petitioner, being the highest bidder, more particularly, when the respondents themselves had fixed the upset/reserved price of the shops @ Rs. 1905/­per month per shop, as is evident from a document, appended with the petition, which reads as under:

Name of Works

Upset price by RO

Running of Cafeteria 4 shops near Parking and Parking at Saurabh Van Vihar Palampur

Cafeteria: Total base price=22501/- per month.

Calculation is based on in 2016 award was given to Rs.15001,keeping inview of inflation 10% increase every year i.e. for 5 year all are accumulated to Rs. 22501/ Per Month

Shop: Total base Price = 1905/- Per month Per shop.

Calculation is based on in 2016 award was given to 1270 Rs., keeping in view of inflation 10% increase every year, i.e. for 5 years all are accumulated to Rs. 1905/- Per month Per shop.

Parking: Total base Price = 11100/- Per Month.

Calculation is based on in2016 award was given to 7400 Rs, keeping in view of inflation 10% increase every year i.e. for 5 years all are accumulated to Rs. 11100/ Per Month

It needs to be noticed that even the Deputy Chief Conservator (Forest) Palampur had himself requested the Chairman, Governing Body SVVMS ­cum­ CCF Dharamshala to award the tender to the next highest bidder, i.e. the petitioner, unfortunately instead of acting on the proposal, the Chairman, Governing Body SVVMS­cum­CCF Dharamshala sent it back by directing him to take action at his level keeping in view the terms and conditions of the tender documents.

To say the least, this is nothing short of red tapism existing in the respondent­department. It is high time that the officials of the respondent­department learn to shoulder responsibility and take the decisions even if the same are inconvenient and not indulge and unnecessarily involve in protracted unnecessary correspondence(s).

It is not only surprising but rather shocking that the respondent Santosh Kapoor had been offered four shops at rental of Rs. 13,500/­ each shop, more particularly when the bid offered by respondent Santosh Kapoor was found to be bogus, and said Santosh Kapoor had been blacklisted.

The amount of Rs. 13,500/­ offered could not have been treated as upset/reserve price, more especially when the said price having already been determined by the respondents themselves @ Rs. 1905/­ per month per shop, and for which shops the petitioner has already offered the amount of Rs. 4500/­ per shop, i.e. Rs. 1800/­ for all the shops.

It is more than settled that the State, in any facet of its personality, acting in the performance of its normal duties as a State or through its agencies, set up for specific objectives, should act reasonably, in a non­discriminatory and non­arbitrary manner. Therefore, when a State or its agencies deal with public property or enter into contractual relationships, their decisions cannot be based on whims, caprice, personal likes or prejudices but have to be informed with reason, which unfortunately, are not coming forth in the instant case.

Having said so, we find merit in the petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to award the contract to the petitioner being successful and highest bidder, within a period of 15 days from today, w.e.f. 1.12.2021 to 31.8.2022. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.