Delhi High Court
Jitender Singh Bhatia vs Union Of India And Anr. on 10 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 167, 96 (2002) DLT 384, 2002 (62) DRJ 179
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ
petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition,
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision
dated 21.8.2000, passed by respondent No. 2, Directorate
of Estates, in respect of allotment of Stall No. 45,
Sector-III, M.B. Road, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 had
invited tenders for licensing the said stall.
Petitioner and others had submitted their bid. The
highest bidder for the said stall was one Mr. Manjit
Singh Saluja, who had tendered a sum of Rs. 4500/-.
Petitioner had given a bid for Rs. 2952/-. The reserve
price was Rs. 1690/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
assailed the decision of respondent No. 2 of not
granting the license to the petitioner, who was the
second highest bidder, but going in for re-tendering on
the ground that as per the long standing practice of
the respondent, the second highest bidder was to be
given the chance if the highest bidder withdraws. In
the instant case, Mr. Manjit Singh Saluja, who was the
highest bidder, had indicated his inability to accept
the license. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that
petitioner, who had bid Rs. 2952/-, which was
significantly higher than the sum of Rs. 1690/-, which
was the reserve price, should have been awarded the
license. Learned counsel has also cited the instances
of number of stalls, namely, stall Nos. 32, 35, 36, 40, 41
and 44, where the tenderers, who had given a bid which
was higher than the reserve price, were awarded the
license, without going in for re-tendering.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that in
cases of stall Nos. 32, 35, 36, 40, 41 and 44, the bids
given were, specially in cases of stall Nos. 32, 35 and
40, even lower than the bid given by the petitioner
i.e. Rs. 2105/-, Rs. 2724/- and Rs. 2500/- respectively,
yet they were granted the license without retendering.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed. In
the counter affidavit, respondents, no doubt, admit
that the bidders in cases of stall No. 32, 35, 36, 40, 41
and 44 have been awarded the license. However,
Ms. Rekha Palli, counsel for the respondents, has
clarified, after obtaining instructions, that in these
cases either the highest bidder was awarded or there
was only one bidder. Another reason given by the
respondents is that in the instant case, the difference
between the highest bidder and the petitioner was
considerable. The highest bidder had bid Rs. 4500/-
while petitioner's bid was Rs. 2952/-. In this view of
the matter, respondents, with a view to avoid any loss
to the exchequer and in interest of public revenue
decided to go in for re-tendering, which was
permissible as per the tender conditions.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings, I find that the respondents do
have a justification in the instant case for going in
for re-tendering. The difference between the highest
bidder, who failed to accept the license, and the
petitioner was quite significant. Moreover, in other
cases, cited by the petitioner, there was either only
one bidder or the highest bidder had accepted the bid.
Lastly, the stand of respondents is vindicated by the
fact that upon re-tendering, this particular stall has
fetched a bid of Rs. 6172/- much higher than the earlier
bids of Rs. 4500/- & petitioners bid of Rs. 2952.
In this view of the matter, I find no ground
to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The
writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
