USMAN KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that E-NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) was published by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Morena for collection of Saptahik Pashuhaat Pashu Panjiyan Shulk Vasuli Theka. As per Clause 6 of the NIT, out of the collected/realized amount, minimum 60% was to be deposited in the account of Municipal Corporation and remaining amount was to be kept by the Contractor. It was also mentioned in Clause 4 of the NIT that in case if there is any amendment, then it shall be published on the official website. Three bidders including the petitioner submitted their bids. According to which, (i) M/s Girraj Construction Company offered 78.22% of share to the Municipal Corporation, whereas, (ii) Abbasi Construction and Order Suppliers offered 99.01% share to the Municipal Corporation and (iii) the petitioner offered only 18.05% of share to the Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that thereafter on 30/7/2020 a letter was submitted by respondent no.1 in which he clarified that he will take only 1% of the entire collection amount in place of 0.99%. It is submitted that no information was given to other bidders by the Municipal Corporation and no amendment was published on the website. The objection submitted by the petitioner was kept pending and during pendency of the objection, contract has been executed with respondent no.3 on 27/8/2020 and work order has been issued. The petitioner had demanded a copy of Rules under the RTI and the entire copy of Rules was not provided and only a copy of Ss. 6 to 9 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was provided. It is further submitted that it is not feasible for any contractor to arrange the market place, medical facilities, water and fodder etc. for cattle at his own cost at a meager amount of 1% of the realized amount. It is further submitted that respondent no.3 never participated in the bid. Although he is the Proprietor of Abbasi Construction and Order Suppliers, but instead of entering into a contract with the successful bidder, i.e. Abbasi Construction and Order Suppliers, respondents have entered into the contract with respondent no.3 in his personal capacity, therefore, the agreement executed with respondent no.3 is bad in law.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that as per the NIT, 60% of the realized amount was to be deposited in the account of Municipal Corporation, Morena, whereas 40% was to be retained by the contractor, however, the Municipal Corporation has awarded the contract to the respondent no.3 on the condition that 99% of the realized amount shall be deposited in the account of Municipal Corporation, Morena and only 1% of the realized amount shall be retained by the contractor. It is submitted that no amendment was introduced thereby relaxing 60/40 percentage policy. However, the counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to why the petitioner himself had offered only 18.05% share to respondents no.1 and 2. If the petitioner was of the view that the contractor has to offer 60% share of the realized amount to the Municipal Corporation, then he should have offered 60% share to the Municipal Corporation and not 18.05%. Thus, it is clear that the bidders were aware of the fact that 60/40 percentage is merely a cut-off percentage and it was not final. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have modified the NIT is rejected.