WPMS/2895/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3710 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

               WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2895 OF 2022

                          21ST NOVEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:
Maharaj Ji Traders                                             .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & another                                 ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Verma and Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsels.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, proxy counsel for Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to seek the following reliefs:-

"a. Issue a writ of certiorari by way of suitable orders or directions to quash Notification No.63/E- Tender/ P.Pra.Anu./ 20200-22 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition), issued by the respondent No.2.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari by way of suitable orders or directions to quash Notification No.76/E- tender/N.N.R. for procurement of same articles, i.e. 72 watt LED Light Quantity 3500 and Pipe Clamp Quantity 4000, dated 03.11.2022, issued by the respondent No.2.

c. Issue writ/ direction or order directing the respondent No.2 to award the tender in favour of the petitioner."

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had

participated in the tender issued by the respondent, bearing

Tender Reference No.29/e-tender/NNR/2022-23 and Tender

ID-2022-MCNNR-47044-1, dated 22.07.2022 for procurement

of 72 Watt LED Light Quantity 3500 and Pipe Claim Quantity

4000. The petitioner was adjudged as the lowest bidder.

Respondent no.2, then, communicated to the petitioner on

15.09.2022 that the rates quoted by the petitioner were

higher than the market rates, and offered that if the

petitioner were to supply the LED light with sensor

@Rs.3200/- and pipe claim @Rs.500/-, the petitioner's offer

would be considered. The petitioner responded on

16.09.2022, not accepting the rates desired by respondent

no.2 and offering its own rates, which were higher than the

rates desired by respondent no.2.

3. As a consequence of the same, respondent no.2

decided to cancel the tender and issue a fresh tender. The

petitioner assails the issuance of the fresh tender as well.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

is that if the rates quoted by the petitioner in the first tender,

which were the lowest, were more than the market rates,

respondent no.2 would not have issued the tender afresh for

the same item, and the same quantity, with the same

sanctioned amount.

5. We do not find merit in this submission. The

respondents are bound to explore the possibility of getting

the best rates, and they were not bound to accept the rates

quoted by the petitioner, either initially while submitting the

tender, or the raters offered by the petitioner during

negotiations.

6. Mr. Miglani, who appears on advance notice on

behalf of respondent no.2, also points out that the petitioner

has itself participated in the fresh tender.

7. In our view, the present writ petition is completely

misconceived, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.) Dated: 21st November, 2022 NISHANT