Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6554
1 WP-41608-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 10 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41608 of 2024
RAMBABU RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhagyashree Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
02. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the publication dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P/1)
issued by respondent No.3 whereby offline tenders have been called for allotment
of the shops in question.
03. As per the petitioner, earlier, respondent No.3, Nagar Parishad, Boda,
District Rajgarh (Biora) had issued a notice inviting tender for allotment of various
shops. The petitioner had submitted his bid for allotment of Shop Nos.1, 2 and 6.
His bids were highest since he was the only bidder. The bids submitted by him
were above the offset price. His bids were accepted by respondent No.3.
Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 19.11.2024 (Annexure P/5)
before respondent No.3 for permitting him to deposit the balance amount and for
allotment of the shops in his favor. However, respondent No.3 has not done
anything in the matter and has, on the contrary, issued a fresh NIT on 17.12.2024
(Annexure P/1).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6554
2 WP-41608-2024
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in respect of
Shops No.1, 2 and 6 his bids had already been accepted, respondent No.3 had no
right to issue any fresh NIT in the matter. The bids of the petitioner were duly
considered by respondent No.3 in a meeting of all the counsellors in which a
resolution was passed accepting his bids and proposing to allot the shops to him.
The resolution was passed in the meeting hence could not have been withdrawn by
respondent No.3 at a later stage. Only for the reason that in the tender document, it
has been stated that respondent No.3 would have the right to cancel the tender
without any reason the same cannot be done. It is hence submitted that the petition
be allowed. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
upon order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Principal seat of this Court at Jabalpur
in W.P. No.2238/2023 (Shri Shambhoolal Khattar versus Municipal Council
Umaria and Others).
05. Reply has been filed by respondent No.3 and learned counsel for
respondent No.3 has submitted that though a resolution was passed on 08.07.2024
in which it was stated that the bids of the petitioner deserve to be accepted but
later on the said resolution was inspected and it was found that the same has been
recorded by the clerk for favoring a particular person which has resulted in loss to
the Nagar Parishad hence as per the discussion held in the meeting, the resolution
was cancelled and fresh NIT was directed to be issued. A specific order in that
regard was passed on 08.07.2024. Respondent No.3 had the right to recall the NIT
at any time without giving any reason as has rightly been done by it in view of
which the petition deserves to be dismissed.
06. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6554
3 WP-41608-2024
07. While it is true that the petitioner was the only bidder in respect of the
shops in question and his bids were above the offset price, but from the
proceedings of Nagar Parishad, Boda dated 08.07.2024, it is observed that therein
it was recorded that after discussion, the bids of the petitioner had been accepted.
However, in the very same resolution, later on it was recorded that eight
councilors have proposed for cancellation of the NIT on which discussion was
held. Eventually, the President of Nagar Parishad, Boda, District Rajgarh passed
an order, cancelling the proceedings of resolution No.209 on the ground that the
same have been passed for favoring a particular person which has been done by
the clerk, which has resulted in loss to Nagar Parishad. The said order was passed
on the basis of the discussion held in the meeting. A specific separate order was
passed on 08.07.2024 cancelling the resolution.
08. Thus, it is evident that the bids of the petitioner were never formally
accepted by respondent No.3. Though earlier a proposal was made for accepting
the bids, but later on upon discussion, the resolution itself was cancelled and
specific order was passed by respondent No.3, cancelling the same and directing
for issuance of a fresh NIT. There has only been opening of the bids of the
petitioner, but there has not been any final approval of the same by respondent
No.3 by passing any order. Only for the reason that the bids of the petitioner were
higher than the offset price and he was the sole bidder, he did not acquire any right
for allotment of the shops, since his bids were never formally accepted. A mere
resolution was passed proposing to accept the bids of the petitioner, but the said
resolution was specifically cancelled. Thus, there has not been any acceptance of
the bids of the petitioner by respondent No.3 resulting into any concluded
contract.
09. It is pertinent to mention here that in this petition, the petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6554
4 WP-41608-2024
only challenged the issuance of fresh NIT dated 17.12.2024, but has not
challenged the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by respondent No.3, cancelling the
resolution whereby it was earlier proposed to allot the shops to the petitioner. The
fresh NIT has been issued after passing of the order dated 08.07.2024 which
cannot be interfered with in absence of challenge to the order dated 08.07.2024.
The judgment in the case of Shri Shambhoolal Khattar (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts since therein the
decision was based primarily upon malafides of the authority passing the
impugned order hence does not help the petitioner in any manner.
10. Thus, for the reasons as aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the
matter. The petition is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
