Abdul Majid Wani vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 781 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                 Reserved on   04.05.2022
                                                 Pronounced on 13.05.2022


                                              WP(C) No. 1347/2021 (O&M)


Abdul Majid Wani                                .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                    Through: Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate
               Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others                          ..... Respondent(s)
                    Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                               JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for commanding the

respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and to allot the

work of extraction, Off-Road Transportation and Transportation of

markings in Compartment No. 13-Siraj being the sole bidder/tenderer in

response to the e-NIT No. 03 of 2021-22/East dated 09.06.2021 and

further restraining the respondents from issuing any fresh NIT in respect

of 13-Siraj without considering the tender/financial bid submitted by the

petitioner in response to the aforesaid NIT.

2. It is stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Development Corporation

sanctioned the allotment of contract work of extraction and transportation

of 2.47 lac Cft (RV)/1.23 lac Cft (SV) of timber in Compartment 42/Siraj

of Forest Division Doda vide sanction order bearing No. 369-

72/GM/SFC/DC/CJ dated 21.11.2009 at the agreed rate of 95.57 per cft.

in favour of the G. A. Wani concern, of which, the petitioner is also a

partner. During execution of the contract, it was observed that the

transporting of logs in mahan through the Nallah was very dangerous and

damaging because there was every likelihood of flash floods in the Nallah

which could wash away the whole of the mahan and cause huge loss to

the contractor as well as the Corporation. The matter was discussed with

the management of the Corporation and it was found that the use of

mono-cable cranes instead of mahan through Nallah is the safest way to

transport the timber upto the loading point for road transportation to the

depots of the Corporation at Jammu. However, the purchase of these

mono-cable cranes was a costly affair and investment of crores of rupees

was required, which was not feasible. The firm of the petitioner showed

its reluctance in purchasing the mono-cable cranes for off-road

transportation of the timber logs citing the reason of higher cost and less

return but the management in categorical terms assured the petitioner's

concern that in case petitioner's concern purchases the mono-cable cranes

for off-road transportation of timber in compartment No. 42/Siraj, the

Corporation will allot the extraction and transportation of timber to the

petitioner in all the compartment adjacent to 42/Siraj viz. 13/Siraj,

33/Siraj, 35/Siraj, 70(a)/Siraj, 70(b)/Siraj, 71/Siraj etc of Forest Extraction

Division Doda so that the petitioner's concern is adequately compensated

for the investment and purchase of the mono-cable cranes. There was

explicit understanding that the extraction and transportation of timber

from the compartments adjacent to 42/Siraj particularly compartment No.

13/Siraj will be allotted to the petitioner only, even the petitioner was also

associated by the Forest Department in the process of marking of the trees

for felling and conversion into logs in these compartments particularly in

compartment No. 13-Siraj. After completion of the markings and

assessment of the volume of the Timber to be extracted in the above

mentioned compartments particularly 13/Siraj, the management totally

ignored the assurance given to the petitioner and in utter derogation of all

promises, put the extraction and transportation work in the said

compartments particularly compartment No. 13-Siraj to tender by issuing

e-NIT 03 of 2017-18/Tenders/SFC/ECD dated 16.03.2018 seeking tenders

for various Timber logging Operations i.e. extraction, off-road

transportation and transportation of markings available in various

compartment in Forest Extract Division Doda including 13/Siraj but no

contractor came forward to the said offer. The respondents floated another

NIT being e-NIT No. 01/Tenders/SFC/ECD dated 16.04.2018 for the

extraction, and transportation work in different forest compartments

including 13/Siraj but no contractor participated in the said tender.

Thereafter, after more than one and half year, third time NIT was issued

on 02.09.2020 bearing No. 02/2020-21/EAST but the process again failed

and no one came forward to submit the tender. The petitioner did not

participate in the tendering process and did not submit his tenders in

response to above three e-NITs so far as it pertained to 13-Siraj firstly

because the rates sanctioned by the Corporation were very low and not

feasible and secondly because the petitioner despite having been made to

purchase mono-cable cranes and other equipment on the assurance that his

concern will only be allotted the extraction work in the compartments

adjacent to compartment No. 42/Siraj, but was not allotted the work.

3. Later on the respondent No. 3 issued e-NIT No. 03 of 2021-22/East dated

09.06.2021 for the extraction, Off-Road Transportation and

Transportation of marked trees available in advertised

compartments/groups of compartments in East Circle Doda including

compartment N0. 13-Siraj.

4. The petitioner participated in the tender and submitted his tender for

various timber logging operations in compartment No. 13/siraj. The

petitioner has deposited Rs. 28,66,900/- as the earnest money and on

01.07.2021, the petitioner was found as the sole response to the e-NIT so

far as it pertains to the NIT pertaining to Timber Logging Operation in

compartment No. 13/Siraj.

5. The respondents finding that the petitioner being the only person who had

responded to e-NIT is entitled for allotment of the work are delaying the

allotment of contract to the petitioner. As the petitioner is having all the

requisite infrastructure for the successful execution of the contract, the

petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to open the financial bid

of the petitioner and to allot the work of extraction, off road transportation

and transportation of markings in compartment No. 13 Siraj being the sole

bidder/tenderer.

6. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it is stated that no

assurance was given to the petitioner for allotment of the work in the

adjacent compartment as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that

the petitioner participated in the tender under reference and as only a

single bid was received so it was decided to create competition by

retendering by the competent authority. The respondents are well within

the right not to accept the bid of the petitioner as the petitioner was the

only participant in the tender process.

7. Mr. K. S. Johal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has

vehemently argued that the petitioner being the only bidder was entitled

for allotment of the contract. He relied upon the judgment of the Delhi

High Court, titled, Tdi International India Ltd vs Airports Authority

of India and another, 2004 (115) DLT 139.

8. On the contrary, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG for the

respondents has vehemently argued that the respondents are well within

their right to accept or reject the tender and in the instant case, as no bid

was received by the respondents except that of the petitioner, so in order

to get the better option, the competent authority has decided to retender.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. Condition No. 13.1 of the general instructions to bidder reveals that the

accepting authority reserves the right to accept or reject any or all the

tender(s), before or after their opening, without assigning reasons for any

such action, as such, the respondents are well within their right either to

accept or reject any or all tender(s) before or after their opening, without

assigning reasons.

11. In the instant case, the respondents have a valid reason not to accept the

offer of the petitioner as they have received only one bid so it is for the

respondents to see that they get the best offer in response to their tender.

This Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the

respondents and the petitioner cannot seek any direction for allotment of

the contract for his concern being the only bidder, as he has no vested

right for allotment of contract. It is prerogative of the respondents to either

accept or refuse the offer made by the petitioner. The doctrine of

legitimate expectation has no role to play in the instant case. The

judgment relied upon by Mr. Johal rather runs contrary to the claim of the

petitioner.

12. Viewed thus, this petition has no merit, as such, the same is dismissed.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge JAMMU 13.05.2022 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No