Suresh Ch.Patra vs Paradip Port Trust

This petition seeks quashing of second Tender Call Notice dated 31.12.2012 and to award the work to the petitioner for providing assistance to regular employees in receipt, despatch of letters, etc. to the opposite parties.

Case of the petitioner is that he participated in earlier Tender Call Notice dated 14.11.2012, but his bid was not accepted and fresh Tender Call Notice was issued without any valid reason. Since the petitioner was the only successful bidder in the earlier tender process, he had a right to be allotted work, but the decision to issue second Tender Call Notice was taken to give undue favour to some other candidates by inducting new eligibility criteria. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another etc., .

Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 stating that the period of tender was for one year. The petitioner was at no. 2 position out of the eligible bidders. But the decision was taken, for administrative reasons, to retender the work. The petitioner was not the lowest bidder. According to the decision now taken, the work is to be awarded on selection basis through open tender and in that process more bidders are expected to participate.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The only contention put forward before us is that even in contractual matters the public authorities should not have unfettered discretion and they must follow the norms recognized by the courts while dealing with the public property. This having not been done, fresh tender process is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be awarded the work.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there was no arbitrariness in the present case. The object of issuing fresh Tender Call Notice was to enable adequate participation so that the work could be allotted to the best available candidate. The decision taken is bona fide and the work could not be allotted to the petitioner, whose bid is not the lowest. Even in the judgment relied upon, it has been clearly laid down that the authorities are entitled to assess the overall situation and take a bona fide decision to issue fresh Tender Call Notice. The facts noted in paragraph-16 of the said judgment are different from the facts of the present case. In that case, the petitioner was virtually debarred from competing with the other bidders and monopoly was created in favour of one party. In the present case, as a result of decision taken, the petitioner as well as the other bidders are entitled to compete.

We find that there is no denial of level playing field. There is nothing to show that the decision taken in the present case was not bona fide. Even if the petitioner was the only candidate left, we are of the view that no right accrued to him for award of work or to seek interference with the decision taken for fresh Tender Call Notice. The petitioner was not the lowest bidder though for technical reasons, bids of other bidders may not have been found to be responsive.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.