AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the tender form submitted by it has been illegally rejected by the respondents. A further prayer for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner-firm as eligible for providing godown, to built and operate it on lease basis, for storage requirements of Food Corporation of India for ten years have also been made. A prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 29.11.2011 (P.7) whereby the tender form submitted by the petitioner firm has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner firm was required to submit non encumbrance certificate with technical bid whereas the case of the petitioner is that a copy of the revenue record (Jamabandi) was submitted with the tender form which duly reflected that the petitioner firm was the absolute owner and there was no encumbrance. Moreover, it was also pleaded that non encumbrance certificate was not required to be submitted as it was not a condition in the tender form.
In the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous as new tenders have been floated inviting applications under two-bid system for construction of godowns for FCI storage which has also been published in the newspaper on 20.1.2012. The closing date for the sealed tenders has been fixed upto 3.30 PM on 22.2.2012 (R.1) and the petitioner is entitled to apply afresh. On merits, number of submissions have been made including the submission that the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Clause 21 of the MTF which provide for furnishing in technical bid all the details of the location, survey numbers, proof of ownership/ registered lease of land etc. For the view, we are taking it would not be necessary either to refer to the detailed stand taken on merits by the respondents nor to deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous. Once the respondents have already floated fresh tenders without allotting the earlier tender to any one, no vested right would accrue to the petitioner to insist that earlier tender should be taken to its logical end and since he was the alone tenderer eligible it should be allotted to him. In the tender notice, there are large number of clauses which empower the respondents to not only cancel the tender but also to reject the application of tenderer on sustainable grounds. However, such a ground is sustainable or not would pale into insignificance once the tender has been cancelled and new tender has been floated. The petitioner has no vested right which may result into creation of corresponding duty on the respondents so as to issue direction to the respondents to enforce that right. The petitioner, if so desires, may apply in response to the newly floated tender and compete with others. The writ petition is wholly without and merit and is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.