Bombay High Court
Mohammed Junaid Ahmed Aejaz Ahmed vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 wp 7777.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1045 WRIT PETITION NO.7777 OF 2021
MOHAMMED JUNAID AHMED AEJAZ AHMED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thombre S. S.
I/c. G.P. for Respondents No. 1 to 4:
Mr. D. R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 5: Mrs. Usha P. Kale
...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE: 20th AUGUST, 2021
PER COURT:
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition
has prayed for following reliefs-
"B) By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any
other writ, order or directions in the like
nature, the tender notice published by the
Chief Officer Municipal Council, Khultabad on
28.06.2021 may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
C) By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any
other writ, order or directions in the like
nature, direct the Chief Officer Municipal
2 wp 7777.2021
Council, Khultabad, to complete the earlier
tender process and for that purpose issue
necessary order."
2. Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate for the
petitioner strenuously contends that earlier the
tender notice was issued. The petitioner fill in
the tender. The date for opening the technical bid
was fixed as 02.11.2020. The technical bids were
not opened nor the financial bids were opened on
the given date. The petitioner filed Writ Petition
No. 7091 of 2021. After filing of the writ
petition the respondent cancelled the tender
process as such the petitioner withdrew the said
writ petition with liberty to file fresh one.
3. Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate further submits
that there is no plausible reason given for
cancellation of the earlier tender process. The
action of the respondent in cancelling the
earlier tender process is arbitrary. Action of the
authorities has to be transparent, more
particularly, when it concerns the State largesse.
3 wp 7777.2021
The authorities are also bound by the norms laid
down by the Government. In case, the action of the
authority is arbitrary, unreasonable then, this
Court can exercise it's writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
learned Advocate to buttress his submission relies
upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Ramanna Dayaram Shetty Vs. International
Airport Authority of India and Others reported in
(1979) 3 SCC 489. Another Judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Common Cause, A Registered
Society Vs. Union of India and others reported in
(1996) 6 SCC 530 and submits that the process has
to be transparent, just, fair and non arbitrary,
in accordance with the norms, criteria or
guidelines. The learned Advocate submits that the
respondent authority in flagrant abuse of it's
powers cancelled the earlier tender process on
frivolous grounds. The reasons mentioned by the
respondent is that the Chief Executive Officer was
transferred and that the digital signature was not
available of the then C.E.O. The C.E.O. was
4 wp 7777.2021
transferred in December-2020, the technical bids
were sought to be opened on 02.11.2020, the reason
given is palpably wrong. The learned Advocate
further submits that the another C.E.O. of
Gangapur Municipal Council was In-charge of the
Khultabad Municipal Council. He was having the
additional charge. His signature should have been
attached. The reason given is absolutely erroneous
and does not satisfy the test of reasonableness.
The learned Advocate also relies on the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajendran
Chingaravelu Vs. R. K. Mishra, Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 457, so also, in case of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited and others Vs. Shashi Prabha
Shukla and another reported in (2018) 12 SCC 85.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Advocate for the respondent.
5. The tender of the petitioner pursuant to the
earlier tender process was not accepted. The
5 wp 7777.2021
petitioner did not get vested right pursuant to
the earlier tender process. No doubt, the
petitioner has a legitimate expectation to be
treated fairly in just manner. The authority also
has to exercise the powers in a reasonable manner.
The same should not smack of arbitrariness.
Arbitrariness has no role in the society governed
by rule of law. Arbitrariness is antithesis to
justice, equity, fair play and good conscience.
Arbitrary action cannot be sustained.
6. In the present case, the respondent Municipal
Council had passed a Resolution on 15.03.2021
detailing the difficulties faced because of
Covid-19 and also the digital signature could not
be obtained of the then C.E.O. of the Municipal
Council. It has been stated in the Resolution that
the then C.E.O. in spite of efforts could not be
contacted for the signature. Much time had lapsed
and because of Covid-19 the attendance of the
employees was also very less and the tenders were
pending, the same were not opened. After lapse
of 6 months the decision is taken to cancell the
6 wp 7777.2021
same. Almost a year has lapsed since the earlier
tender process could not be fructified. The
respondents have taken steps to initiate fresh
tender process. The initiation of the fresh tender
process does not smack of favouritism, malafides
and arbitrariness.
7. In case the tenders would have been opened
and the petitioner would have been found to be the
lowest bidder and subsequently the tenders are
cancelled in such a case, though, the petitioner
would not get a vested right, still, his arguments
would have been worth consideration about
arbitrariness and favoritism. In the present case,
as none of the tenders were opened the petitioner
or for that matter any other tenderer would not
get knowledge as to who was the lowest bidder.
8. In the light of that, it cannot be said that
the act of the respondent is arbitrary or smacks
of malafides.
7 wp 7777.2021
9. In the light of above, writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
