GANESH CARRIERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who participated in earlier tender process for transportation of foodgrains in Nagpur district, has now filed present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the retender notice dated 2nd December, 2014 for transportation of the foodgrains for the period from 2013 to 2016. A prayer is also made to accept the earlier tender / offer submitted by the petitioner it being the lowest one.

(3.) There is no dispute that the higher competent authorities of respondents, based upon the tender conditions had earlier rejected tender/ case of the petitioner by communication dated 9th July, 2014, quoted rates were 271% more. However, the District Supply Officer by communication dated 18th September, 2014 though accepted the finding that the rates are more than 271% times, by referring to awarding of contracts in other areas, observed that it is only 20% more than the base rates and recommended to go for negotiations, as such offer is already given by the petitioner. The respondents, in the background, considering their power and authority and by giving sufficient reasons, once again rejected the offer of the petitioner, on the ground so referred above, and further considering the point of view of revenue. The authority of State if not willing to give the petitioner further opportunity even of negotiations and published a fresh tender which, in our view, cannot be stated to be bad in law and of beyond the authority. To accept or not to accept any offer is within the domain and control of the State Authority. The reasons so provided, as referred above, just cannot be stated to be arbitrary, discretionary and / or beyond the conditions so imposed. In some areas the tenders of similar nature, as contended by the petitioner, have been accepted that itself, in our view, cannot be a sufficient ground to direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's tender, which as referred above already rejected for the reasons so stated. There is no case of an illegality or malafide action.