CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 05 DEL CK 0030

Shri Mukhraj vs The Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 8 May 2001 · Citation: (2001) 5 AD 1004 : (2001) 92 DLT 580 : (2001) 59 DRJ 364

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan Sarin, J
CASE NUMBER
CW.No. 2552 of 2001 and CM. 4438 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 363 words

Manmohan Sarin. J

Rule.

1.

With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2.

Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the tender amount and start the work of removing carcasses of dead animals for the year 2001-02, under the terms and conditions as incorporated in the tender. Admittedly the highest bid received in the tenders invited was of Rs. 9,10,000/- (Rupees nine lacs ten thousand only). The petitioner was the second highest bidder at Rs. 5,05,000/-(rupees five lacs five thousand only). The highest bidder did not come forward to deposit the earnest money. Petitioner Therefore claimed that the contract should have been awarded to him, being the second highest bidder at Rs. 5,05,000/-. The respondents found that the second highest bid at Rs. 5,05,000/- of the petitioner was far below their expectation. The petitioners own bid last years was for over Rs. 9 lacs. The respondent/MCD to subserve public revenue, decided to cancel the tender and invite fresh bids. Undoubtedly the respondents are entitled to do so under the terms and conditions of the tender.

3.

The second grievance of the petitioner is that the person who was the third highest bidder has been given the work of removal of carcasses in the interim. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, wherein it has been explained that after the cancellation of the tender, petitioner was willing to do the removal of carcasses in the interim period only at the rate quoted i.e. Rs. 5,05,0000/- per annum. While Mr. Tek Chand, who is presently executing the work, has agreed to do the same at the rates which may be settled as per the fresh tender. The respondents expect the rates in the fresh tenders to be settled much higher than Rs. 5,05,000/-.

In these circumstances, petitioner who is not willing to give similar offer, cannot have any legitimate grievance if he is not awarded the work in the interim. In any case, the fresh tenders are to be opened and finalized this month only.

In view of the foregoing discussion the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.