JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a tenderer for obtaining an order quashing the impugned tender notice dated 24th March, 2010 issued for re-auction of toll tax collection on National Highway-119, Meerut-Pauri Road at Mile Stone 68 Ganga Barrage Bridge. This allegation of the petitioner is that for the said purpose the auction was held on 22nd March, 2010, wherein petitioner was the highest bidder, but inspite of the same, agreement was not executed by the respondent authority in his favour. On the other hand, on 24th March, 2010 an order has been passed to hold re-auction on 31st March, 2010 and notice was published in the newspaper on 26th March, 2010, as stated before the Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in the last year the bridge was in the hands of the State authority. Now the State authority, as a matter of policy, does not want to engage any contractor to collect the toll tax. However, since the bridge is notified to be under the National Highway Authority by the notification dated 27th January, 2010 there is no embargo on the part of the State authority to hold the auction as an agent of the Central Authority. The contention of the writ petitioner is that as per Clause 3.1 (ii) of the Government order dated 3rd January, 2004, no question of negotiation will be made available with any tenderer. However, if the authority finds that the rate of bid is not sufficient then fresh tender will be invited by giving notice of ten days. In such circumstances, cancellation of the bid dated 22nd March, 2010 and publication of notice dated 24th March fixing the date of auction on 31st March, 2010 are uncalled for. We were initially surprised that what was the necessity of calling fresh tender so shortly ignoring the Government order dated 3rd January, 2004 itself and, therefore, adjourned the matter to take up the same at 10 a.m. today since the auction is going to take place today itself at 11 p.m.

(3.) Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted before this Court that in proposing fresh auction the authority concerned has ignored the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments in Mahavir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., 1990 AIR(SC) 1031 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651 .