ALANG MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal, the appellant, Alang Marine Pvt. Ltd., an unsuccessful tenderer for a job of construction and supply of steel hull Twin Self Propelled and Self Hopper Grab Dredger for the port of Porbandar, has challenged the correctness of the decision of the single Judge of this Court, made on 24/04/1991, in the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, being Special Civil Application No. 1574 of 1991, inter alia, challenging the acceptance of the said tender by the respondents in favour of respondent No. 5-Messrs Chaugule and Co. Ltd.

(2.) The appellant contended, inter alia, that the Gujarat Maritime Board is a statutory body, authorised by the statute, to enter into contract with a third party for implementing contract of job for the ports in the State of Gujarat. Although the State Government of Gujarat has a deep concern for the development of ports in the State and bears the burden of financial implications concerning the ports and the Maritime Board itself is constituted by the nominees of the State Government, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has not authorised the State Government to deal with or enter into contracts for various jobs to be undertaken in connection with the functioning of the ports in Gujarat. It is the Maritime Board, which only can enter into contract. As a matter of fact, the tender was floated by the Maritime Board and it also processed the tender papers by making evaluation of tenderers, both on the score of suitability from the point of view of technical expertise and capability and also from the point of view of the quantum of money quoted for the tender work. On such considerations, the appellant-Company was adjudged quite suitable and capable of implementing the contract and the tender amount for the job being lowest, the appellant-Company was also found most suitable. In the aforesaid facts, the tender form of the appellant should have been accepted if the Maritime Board and other respondents had acted fairly and properly. But for reasons best known to the respondents, which remain inexplicable, there was a last moment manoeuvre by the State Government and by making private negotiations with the respondent No. 5, the tender amount was allowed to be lowered by the respondent No. 5 against all norms and fair play in order to favour the said respondent No. 5 with the said job contract.

(3.) The appellant also contended that it is quite manifest that the State Government accepted the tender of the respondent No. 5 and informed the said respondent to contract the Maritime Board. Such acceptance of contract by the State Government and superimposition of such acceptance on the Maritime Board are absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act. Hence, in any event, the acceptance of tender form of the respondent No. 5 must be struck down. The learned single Judge, however, did not accept the said contentions of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the finding that on evaluation of expertise and capability by the Deputy Director of Gujarat Maritime Board, the respondent No. 5 was found most suitable and dependable and it was decided that the job contract should be entrusted to respondent No. 5, which has successfully executed the nature of sophisticated works involved in the job contract in other Ports. It was also noted by the learned single Judge that by agreeing to drawn bills in the State of Gujarat by the respondent No. 5, the amount ultimately quoted by the respondent No. 5 was also very suitable. Accordingly, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in accepting the tender of respondent No. 5. As aforesaid, such decision of the learned single Judge is under challenge in the instant Appeal.