Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3288 of 2000
PETITIONER:
MONARCH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2000
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (3) SCR 1159
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted in all the three sets of petitions.
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation issued a Notice inviting tender for
appointment of agents for collection of Octroi subject to the terms and
conditions set forth therein fixing 4 p.m. on March 23, 2000 to be the tune
of submission of the tender and fixing 5 p.m. on the same day for opening
of the tenders. On March 21, 2000 M/s. Millenium Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
filed a writ petition No. 1456 of 2000 in the High Court at Mumbai
challenging the imposition of two conditions contained in Clauses 6(a) and
6(b) of the Tender Booklet as unconstitutional and seeking deletion of
these two conditions as pre-requisite for its participation in the tender.
On March 21, 2000, a Division Bench of the High Court and having heard the
parties adjourned the matter till March 24, 2000 at 11 a.m. by making it
clear that there shall be no interim relief except that the Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corpo-ration shall not issue work order till further orders.
However, on March 23, 2000 M/s. Millenium Infrastructure (P) Ltd. withdrew
the aforesaid writ petition. Five persons tendered their documents and
papers and they are M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd., appellant in Civil
Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6717-18 of 2000, M/s. Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd., appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of 6298 of
2000 and respondent No. 3, M/s. Jai Krishna Infrastructure (P) Ltd.,
respondent No. 4, M/s. Oriental Veneers (P) Ltd. respondent No. 5, M/s.
Sample Infrastructure, respondent No. 6 in the Appeal filed by M/s. Konark
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation, however, intimated the tenderers that as the High Court was
seized of a writ petition he did not propose to open the tenders until
further orders from the High Court on March 24, 2000. However, he sought
for information of the numbers of the tenders filed and the tenderers
qualifying and not qualifying conditions Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the
Tender Booklet. On March 24, 2000 the tenders were opened and an objection
was raised that M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. did not fulfil the
conditions either under Clause 6(a) or Clause 6(b) in spite of which, it is
stated, the Commissioner insisted on opening the same. The Commis-sioner
informed the parties that Clause 6(a) had been waived of by reason of the
order made by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 451 of
the Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Commissioner allowed M/s. Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. to furnish a certificate as to Clause 6(b) by a
Chartered Accountant as to its networth which discloses Rs. 4.5 crores
approximately. The Commissioner proceeded to finalise the tenders on the
basis that Clause 6(a) had stood waived or deleted in view of the order of
the Government issued under Section 451 of the Municipal Corporation Act
and awarded the contract in favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
The appellant M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition
challenging the award of contract to M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
on various grounds.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Konark Infra-
structure (P) Ltd. and held that the deletion of clause 6(a) of the Tender
Booklet took place after offers were received on March 23, 2000 and the
offers had been received on the basis of clause 6(a) and Clause 6(b) which
would define the conditions of eligibility. Therefore, the High Court held
that the Municipal Corporation had acted arbitrarily in considering the bid
of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. which did not fulfil the
eligibility conditions on the last date which was prescribed tor the
submission of the tenders. Therefore, the High Court took the view that
once a decision was taken to delete the application of Clause 6(a) and
offers which were received on March 23, 2000 being made on the basis of
existence of Clause 6(a), fairness and equal treatment required that the
process should be carried out afresh to determine whether better or higher
offers would be received upon the deletion of the same and that evidently
having not been done, a restricted application of the modified tender
conditions to only the existing bidders, the Municipal Corporation had been
deprived of the opportunity which it could have had of obtaining higher or
better bids. On that basis, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
However, it was noticed that by reason of the deletion of Clause 6(a) of
the Tender Booklet a wider net was available and, therefore, the Municipal
Corporation should have the benefit of as wide a field as should be
reasonably possible. In that view of the matter, it did not direct the
Municipal Corporation to accept the higher bid of M/s. Konark
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and thereby while quashing the award of contract in
favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. made it clear that the
Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to invite a fresh tender for the
purpose of awarding the contract for collection of octroi on terms and
conditions which would be prescribed by the Municipal Corporation. Further,
it was made clear that the aforesaid process should be completed within a
period of four weeks and some interim arrangement for collection of octroi
shall be made subject to certain conditions.
This order made by the High Court is called in question by the appellants.
On April 17, 2000 when this matter came up for consideration before this
Court, we made an order while issuing notice to all the parties to continue
the interim arrangement subject to certain modifications and to take steps
for calling tenders as directed by the High Court but shall not finalise
until further orders.
Shri Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior counsel, and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan,
learned senior counsel, appearing for M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
submitted that (i) that the order of the Government under Section 451 of
the Municipal Corporation Act deleting Clause 6(a) of the Tender Booklet is
ultra vires said section as it does not fall within its scope; (ii) the
certificate filed by M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. issued by Mahesh
Makhija & Co., Chartered Accountant on March 24, 2000 computed the networth
on the basis of equity capital/preference capital/share application
money/deposit from directors lying with the company as cheques on hand
inasmuch as net worth can only be ascertained with reference to equity and
undistributed profits. Sequence of events indicated malafides on the part
of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation in allowing M/s. Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. to participate in the tender process in spite of
the non-fulfilment of conditions prescribed in Clause 6(a) and Clause 6(b)
of the Tender Notice. Thus the sanctity of the tender process was affected.
It is now brought to our notice by Shri Harish Salve, learned Solicitor
General appearing for the Municipal Corporation, that after the interim
order was made by us three persons offered valid bids and details are
hereinafter set forth as under :
Name Old (12 Months) Rupees New (11 Months) New Proportionate for 12
Months
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Reserve Price 36,33,30,000 34.00.00.000
Monarch Infra. Pvt. Ltd. 40,41,40,500 40,81.50.000
44,52.54,545
Konark Infra. Pvt. Ltd. 38,16,22,221 35,31,21,111 38,52,23,030
Jai Krishna Infra. 38,11,11,111 37,51,00,000 40,92,00,000
It is also stated that Ramchand Mahadeo Rao also offered a bid for a sura
of Rs. 41,51,00,000, details of which we will advert to a little later, and
it is indicated that he is willing to raise it to Rs. 42 crores.
The question that arises for consideration in these cases are (i) whether
the High Court is justified in setting aside the award of contract in
favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.; (ii) whether the direction
for fresh process of tender instead of awarding the contract in favour of
M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. is justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case, and (iii) the effect of the steps taken now by
the Municipal Corporation to call for fresh tenders.
Shri Shanti Bhushan and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, for the appellant, pointed out
that the sanctity of the tender process must be maintained and principles
in relation to award of contact should be settled instead of merely making
an order which is expedient in the circumstances of the case. Both of them
submitted that in the new tender process Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) have been
altogether deleted which is only to favour M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. and, therefore, we should not encourage such activity in these
matters. There have been several decisions rendered by this Court on the
question of tender process, the award of contract and evolved several
principles in regard to the same. Ultimately what prevails with the courts
in these matters is that while public interest is paramount there should be
no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract and all participants in
the tender process should be treated alike. We may sum up the legal
position thus :
(i) The Government is free to enter into any contract with citizens but the
court may interfere where it acts arbitrarily or contrary to public
interest;
(ii) The Government cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for
entering into such a relationship or to discriminate between persons
similarly situate:
(iii) It is open to the Government to reject even the highest bid at a
tender where such rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such
rejection is in public interest for valid and good reasons.
Broadly stated, the courts would not interfere with the matter of
administrative action or changes made therein unless the Government’s
action is arbitrary or discriminatory or the policy adopted has no nexus
with the object it seeks to achieve or is mala fide.
If we bear thee principles in mind, the High Court is justified in setting
aside the award of contract in favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. because it had not fulfilled the conditions relating to Clause 6(a) of
the Tender Notice but the same was deleted subsequent to the last date of
acceptance of the tenders. If that is so, the arguments advanced on behalf
of M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in regard to allegation of mala
fides of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation in showing special
favour to M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. or the other contentions
raised in the High Court and reiterated before us are insignificant because
the High Court had set aside the award made in favour of M/s. Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The only question therefore remaining is whether
any contract should have been awarded in favour of M/s. Konark
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Infrastructure (P) Ltd.. The High Court had taken the view that if a term
of the tender having been deleted after the players entered into the arena
it is like changing the rules of the game after it had began and,
therefore, if the Government or the Municipal Corporation was tree to alter
the conditions fresh process of tender was the only alternative
permissible. Therefore, we find that the course adopted by the High Court
in the circumstances is justified because by reason of deletion of a
particular condition the wider net will be permissible and a larger
participation or more attractive bids could be offered.
Now it is necessary to consider the case of Ramchand Mahadev Rao. One of
the conditions to make offer is regarding the earnest money deposit for a
sum of Rs. 1.70 crores in the form of crossed Demand Draft/Pay Order or
Cash. Ramchand Mahadev Rao got prepared a cheque for Rs. 1.70 crores as
required from the bank and submitted the tender just before the expiry of
the time on April 19, 2000. He further alleges that in haste and confusion
he misplaced the Demand Draft and was in a wrong impression that a mere
photocopy of the draft duly notarised will be sufficient and, therefore, he
submitted photocopy of the Demand Draft along with other relevant docu-
ments. The conditions of the "Notice Inviting Tender" is that the same
should be accompanied by a Demand Draft/pay order or cash and in no other
form. It is clear from the statement made by him as to in what manner he
could gather an impression that a photocopy of the Demand Draft duly
notorised would be sufficient nor it could be said that it is naive to
accept a mere statement that Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 1.70 crores
obtained for the purpose of submitting the same along with the tender
documents could be misplaced in the manner suggested in the application.
Therefore, the Munici-pal Corporation is justified in rejecting the tender
offer made by Ramchand Mahadev Rao as not fulfilling the conditions of the
Tender Notice.
Now we will turn to the last question formulated by us. The High Court had
directed the commencement of new tender process subject to such terms and
conditions, which will be prescribed by the Municipal Corporation. New
terms and conditions have been prescribed apparently bearing in mind the
nature of contract, which is only collection octroi as an agent and
depositing the same with the Corporation. In addition earnest money and the
performance of bank guarantee are insisted upon; collection of octroi have
to be made on day to day basis and payment must be made on weekly basis
entailing, in case of default, cancellation of the contract. We cannot say
whether these conditions are better than what were prescribed earlier for
in such matters the authority calling for tenders is the best judge. We do
not think that we should intercede to restore status quo ante the
conditions arising in clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the Tender Booklet and bid
offered much earlier by M/s. Monark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. should he
accepted, for it filed a writ petition, which was allowed with direction
for calling for fresh tenders. Public interest in the present case would be
definitely served by reason of allowing the tender process to be completed
by accepting the highest offer made by M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
subject to raising its bid to Rs. 42 crores matching with that of Ramchand
Mahadeo Rao, though invalid, for Rs. 41,51,00,000 for the period of 11
months which he is willing to raise to Rs. 42 crores. We are not allowing
M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. or M/s. Jai Krishan Infra-structure
such an opportunity as they had made lower bids.
We dispose of the appeals by upholding the order made by the High Court and
by giving further directions as stated above.