VINAYAK DESAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kantak for the petitioner, Mr. Lawande for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Lotlikar for respondent No. 3.

(2.) THIS petition is filed to challenge the acceptance of tenders submitted by respondent No. 3 for a certain project, advertised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in preference to the tender submitted by the present petitioner.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 the Government of Goa wanted to hold a Food and Cultural Festival of Goa, 1994 at Miramar beach in the period between 16th November, 1994 to 20th November, 1994. A notice inviting tenders for the construction of stalls, stage and the gate for the campus was published in local newspaper on 4-6-1994. Among many others, the petitioner had filed his tender along with two designs, one costing Rs. 3,24,000/- and the other costing Rs. 3,10,000/ -. Respondent No. 3 had filed his tender making it clear that the tender was being filed on behalf of three persons, namely, he himself, one Ravi Fernandes and one Jose Issaias Fernandes. One of the designs was costing Rs. 3,10,000/- while the other was costing Rs. 3,00,000/ -. As per the terms and conditions notified by the Government the tenders were invited from "reputed artists/designers/decorators with previous experience". It was clarified that the last date for receiving tenders was 1st July, 1994 and the tenders were to be opened on the same date in the presence of the tenderers or their representatives at 3. 30p. m. The terms and conditions also indicated that the tenders should be accompanied by a deposit at call drawn in favour of Director of Tourism, Panaji, equivalent to 2?% of the tendered value. It was explicitly made clear that "tenders without the prescribed E. M. D. would be rejected". The next condition indicated was that the successful tenderers would be required to keep a security deposit equivalent to 10% of the tendered value and the tenderer should ensure that the work was completed on time and that everything was in order during the period of the festival and further, that all systems worked uninterrupted even during unexpected power failures, if any. It was clarified that the rates quoted should be all inclusive, such as, expenses for transport, erection/fixing, loading and unloading, etc. The liability to maintain the structures erected, in the course of the festival, was also saddled on the tenderer. It was clarified that the Director of Tourism reserved his right to accept or reject any or all the tenders without assigning any reason.