ANILKUMAR AMOLAKCHAND KANSAL Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms Nisha Parikh, learned AGP waives service of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr Yash Nanavaty waives service of Rule for respondent No. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) WHAT is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the decision of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 awarding the contract for collection of toll tax at Saputara to respondent No. 3 at the monthly rate of Rs. 11,11,111/- for the period from 1. 7. 2008 to 30. 6. 2009.

(3.) TENDERS were invited by the respondent - authorities for collection of toll tax at Saputara with upset price of Rs. 6,90,000/- per month and the authority received a large number of offers, out of which 24 offers were found to be valid. Out of the valid offers, the highest six offers were as under :-<FRM>JUDGEMENT_2786_TLGJ0_2008Html1.htm</FRM> Condition No. 12 of the Tender Conditions conferred discretion on the authority to require the parties to go for inter-se bidding after opening of the offers and in such an eventuality inter-se bidding would start with the highest offer received upwards. Accordingly, the authority called upon the bidders who were present at the time of opening the bids on 27. 6. 2008 to submit any further higher offer. However, none of the bidders present offered any higher offer and, therefore, respondent No. 1 submitted a proposal dated 27. 6. 2008 to the Collector recommending acceptance of the offer of Bajirao S Gangude at the rate of Rs. 21,25,000/- per month. The rojkam and recommendation to the above effect is produced at Annexure R-III to the reply affidavit filed by Deputy Collector and Chief Officer, Notified Area, Saputara, Dangs - respondent No. 1 herein. The Collector accepted the above recommendation and accordingly the Letter of Intent for collection of toll tax in the Notified Area of Saputara for one year period from 1. 7. 2008 to 30. 6. 2009 was granted to Bajirao S Gangude vide letter dated 28. 6. 2008. The said party was called upon to deposit the requisite amount immediately and take charge of the toll booth on 1. 7. 2008. However, the said Bajirao S Gangude could not make any payment and did not come forward to take charge of the toll naka. After issuance of the second notice dated 2. 7. 2008, that party approached the respondent - authorities on 4. 7. 2008 and submitted an application to the respondent stating that he had by mistake quoted the price at Rs. 21,25,000/- per month and that he had intended to quote Rs. 21,25,000/- per annum. That party also submitted an affidavit to that effect. In view of this stand of Bajirao S Gangude that his real offer was Rs. 1. 77 lakhs per month, the respondent - authorities immediately cancelled the Letter of Intent issued to Bajirao S Gangude and forfeited his Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 69,000/- on 18. 7. 2008. In the meantime, the authorities then decided to accept the second highest offer of respondent No. 3 which was Rs. 11,11,111/- per month vide order dated 15. 7. 2008 and awarded the contract to respondent No. 3 for the period from 1. 7. 2008 to 30. 6. 2009. Respondent No. 3 paid the requisite amount on 15. 7. 2008 itself and took over charge of the toll naka.