MOHAN PURSWANI Vs. COMMISSIONER ULHASNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed in public interest to challenge the award of contract for the year 1999-2000 in favour of Respondent No.5. for collection of octroi. The amount for which the contract has been awarded for Respondent No.5 is little more than 33 crores. The reserve price was Rs.33 crores and the offer of Respondent No.5 which was accepted was Rs. 3,03,00,000/-. We have been repeatedly adjourning this Writ Petition to test the bonafides of the contentions raised in the Petition by granting opportunities to the Petitioners if the Petitioners can bring to this Court any person who will be willing to offer more than the amount for which the contract has been awarded and accepted by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. Despite these opportunities, the Petitioners have been unable to bringforth any person and has again sought adjournment for two weeks which we have declined.

(2.) THERE is no substance in the contention that the matter pertaining to consideration of the tender was not on Agenda. It is also apparent from the reply-affidavit that the Resolution was passed by the Corporation in its General Body unanimously and if any Councillor had any grievance it was for him to approach the House and such a grievance by itself cannot be made a subject matter of the public interest writ petition. Prima facie, we also find no substance in the contention that much more amount could have been obtained by the Corporation. There was no higher offer with the Corporation. It seems that the total amount of collection for the year 1998-99 was in the range of about Rs.25 crores. The Corporation states that considering the duty on certain item has been increased, the reserve price of Rs.33 cores had been fixed and the contract tendered by Respondent No.5 for higher amount, as stated, was accepted. The intending tenderers had to furnish the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.1.60 crores and also to give a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.5.28 crores and that has been complied with by Respondent No.5. No other person has comeforth to give higher offer. None had given higher offer in response to the invitation of tender issued by the Corporation and on the facts and circumstances of the case it is thus impermissible for the Petitioners to contend that there were any complaints and the tender ought not to have been accepted. The Petition is highly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.