MOHAMMAD RAFI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners were bidders under a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), dtd. 4/6/2014 published by the Respondent-Corporation for allotment of vacant Terrace of Subhda Complex to be also developed as part of the commercial complex underneath by constructions of additional Shops. The bids were opened on 8/8/2014 and according to the Petitioners they were declared the highest bidders for Part C and D of the Terrace, respectively.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that after they were declared the highest bidders the Mayor-in-Council as also the General Body of the Corporation recommended it to the State Government, for approval. While the matter was pending approval, the Mayor of the Corporation changed pursuant to Municipal elections. The new Mayor- in-Council and General Body considered the matter afresh and on 31/3/2015 decided to annul the previous NIT and proceed afresh giving preference to existing shop keepers in the complex. This could not have been a valid and reasonable justification to cancel the earlier NIT and ignore the Petitioners whose bid was the highest. The existing Shop Keepers had also participated unsuccessfully under the NIT. Referring to Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it was submitted that there was no provision for giving preference to any class of bidders and Rule 6(ii) provided that the settlement had to be made with the highest bidder subject to sanction of the State Government under Sec. 109 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961'). Even if no indefeasible right in the law accrues to a highest bidder, yet denial for award of the works cannot be done arbitrarily and there has to be a reasoned and speaking order why the highest bid was not being accepted. This was necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the decision making process by a government body, curbing any possibility of arbitrary behaviour.

(3.) The existing Shop Keepers Association had come to this Court earlier in Writ Petition (C) No. 1507 of 2014 disposed on 11/8/2014. This Court declined to interfere. Subsequently, in view of the resolution dtd. 31/3/2015 of the new Mayor-in-Council and the General Body, the State Government has declined approval on 23/6/2015. The rejection of the recommendation was therefore arbitrary based on extraneous and irrelevant reasons.