SATISH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the cleaning work relating to the concerned ward for a period of one year and further to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of order dated 24-4-99 and Annexure P. 7 by which the earnest money of the petitioner has been forfeited and for grant of consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur published a notice inviting tender (in short NIT) in the local news paper on 12-3-99 with regard to cleaning arrangement at Jakir Hussain Ward Zone No. 7. As per the NIT the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- was to be deposited. The petitioner deposited the earnest money and participated in the tender. As per the tender condition No. 14 the work order is to be given for a period of one year. On 26-3-99 the result of tender declared. One Manish Sharma was the lowest bidder but as he did not accept the Work his earnest money was forfeited by the respondents. The petitioner being the second lowest tenderer was called by the respondent. At this juncture a meeting of the Mayor in council was held and a decision was taken to give the work to the petitioner for one month on trial basis and if he was found suitable to continue with him for one year. A copy of the proceeding of the meeting has been brought on record. Coming to know about this the petitioner submitted a representation to the Municipal Corporation and sought clarification. The representation submitted by the petitioner was not paid heed to and he was asked to deposit 10% of the amount towards security. The said letter was communicated to the petitioner on 9-4-99. The petitioner thereafter contacted the respondent No. 2 and sought clarification in regard to the period of work but unfortunately no clarification was given and vide order dated 24-4-99 the earnest money was forfeited.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that as the petitioner was the second lowest bidder, a proposal was submitted to the Mayor-in-Council for grant of the said work to him. In the said meeting it was decided to grant him the contract for a period of one month on trial basis. It has also been mentioned that on 9-4-99 a letter was issued to the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total bid amount so that further action for grant of contract could be taken. It has also been stated that at the time of issuance of the letter the decision taken by the Mayor-in-Council was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that instead of depositing the said amount, the petitioner submitted a letter on 11-4-99 whereby he sought certain instructions. Thereafter the Commissioner on 15-4-99 passed an order and directed that if the petitioner failed to deposit 10% of the amount within 2 days his earnest money would be forfeited. The letter dated 9-4-99 has been brounght on record as Annexure R-1.