(1.) COUNTRY spirit is sold by retailers, who are selected by an auction sale. The contractors, who are selected after inviting sealed tenders, supply it in every district at fixed rates. They (contractors) before their selection also file an undertaking before the Excise Commissioner that they will abide by the rate fixed by him and in fact supply country spirit throughout the State at the same rate fixed by the Excise Commissioner. In light of these facts. What is the relevance of tendered rates by the contractors ? Have they become irrelevant? Is there any point in calling sealed tenders? Sans a contract still be awarded to a contractor on the basis of tendered rates ? This is the main question involved in this writ petition. It arises on the following facts. THE FACTs
(2.) THE Excise Commissioner, Allahabad published a tender notice on 13-1-2000 inviting tenders for allotment of various districts to the contractors for supply of country spirit for the excise year 2000- 2001. THE tenders were to be submitted by 3p. m. of 4-2-2000 and were to be opened on the same day at 4 p. m. Sri R. K. Goswami, Secretary General of U. P. Distillers Association (the UPDA) submitted tenders on behalf of 15 distiller of the State for different districts. THE petitioner was one of the 15 distilleries represented by the UPDA and had given tender apart from other districts for district Sultanpur. He had supplied country spirit for district Sultanpur in the previous excise year. THE Bajpur Distillery and Chemical Works Bajpur, district Udham Singh Nagar (the contesting respondent) also submitted a tender, apart from other districts for district Sultanpur. Tenders were opened on 4-2-2000 and the participants noted down the rates. THEy were requested to appear before a committee for further negotiation on 16th and 17th February 2000.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition No. 323 (T) of 2000 ohallenging the orders granting contract for Sultanpur district to the contesting respondent. A Division Bench of this Court declined to decide the case on merits on 29-5-2000 holding that: *the petitioner can approach the State Government under S. 11 (2) of the UP Excise Act (the Act); *the State Government cannot only revise the order of the Commissioner under that section, but could also review its order; THE petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the State Government that was rejected on 21-6- 2000. Hence the present writ petition1. 1 This writ petition has chequered history. A Single Judge of this Court on 28-2-2000 held that the State Government passed the order on a review and the writ petition was cognisable by a bench, the Division Bench by its order dated 30-8-2000 held that the writ petition is against the revisional order passed by the State Government, hence cognisable by the Single Judge. THEreafter the Single Judge released this case on 31-8-2000, the case was assigned to me by the Chief Justice. THE case was adjourned many times at the request of counsels for the parties and that then the advocate strike intervened. Now I am deciding this case on merits. POINTS FOR DETERMINATIOn
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN