RAJENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashment of acceptance of single offer of respondent No. 4 for grant of licence to sell country and foreign liquor as well as order dated 10-3-2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to open the financial bid of the petitioner to grant licence to him as he is the highest bidder. In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their tenders for obtaining licence in respect of country liquor and foreign liquor retail shop situated at Khandali, District Narsinghpur. The petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 3,59,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores fifty nine lacs) whereas the respondent No. 4 submitted an offer of Rs. 3,51,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores fifty one lacs). The petitioner alongwith his tender form submitted a demand draft of Rs. 43.50 lacs towards earnest money. The bid was submitted in two parts. When the first part of the bid was opened, the petitioner was informed that Part I of the bid submitted by the petitioner does not contain an endorsement that the documents annexed with Part I of the tender have been submitted by the petitioner himself. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an objection on 1-3-2014. However, the Collector did not seek any clarification/instruction from the Commissioner (Excise). The petitioner submitted an application on 1-3-2014 to the Commissioner (Excise) on the ground that on account of inadvertence the petitioner did not mention in Part I of the bid that the documents annexed with Part I of the bid were submitted by the petitioner himself and the same tantamounts to mistake of general or clerical nature. Accordingly, his financial bid be accepted. However, bid of respondent No. 4, which was lower, was accepted on 1-3-2014.

(2.) It appears that the Commissioner (Excise) thereupon referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) and sought clarification from the Collector. The Collector in its report stated that since the petitioner had not made an attestation in the documents annexed in Part I of his bid as required under Clauses 16.14 and 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender, therefore, Part I of his bid be treated to be incomplete and Part II, namely, financial bid be not opened. The Deputy Commissioner, by communication, dated 2-3-2014 informed the Commissioner that non-attestation of the document annexed with Part I of the bid submitted by the petitioner amounts to mistake of clerical or general in nature, therefore, the District Committee ought to have got the mistake corrected and should have opened the financial bid of the petitioner. The Commissioner (Excise) agreed with the opinion given by the Deputy Commissioner and suggested that the mistake committed by the petitioner be rectified in terms of Clause 16.17 of the Notice Inviting Tender and the financial bid of the petitioner be opened in the interest of revenue. The Commissioner referred the matter for consideration to the State Government. The Principal Secretary of Commercial Tax expressed the opinion that in view of the proposal given by the Commissioner (Excise) no action at this stage is required and, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved he should approach the Court. The Deputy Secretary vide order dated 10-3-2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner's bid is higher than the respondent No. 4. Under Clause 16.17 of the Notice Inviting Tender any clerical mistake of general or clerical nature can be corrected by the District Committee. It is further submitted that Clauses 16.8 and 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender are directory in nature as no consequences of their non-compliance are provided. It is further submitted that the Commissioner (Excise) is the final authority to take decision under Clause 16.17 of the Notice Inviting Tender and the decision of the Commissioner is binding. It was also urged that the Commissioner's decision was not over-ruled by the State Government and, in case, the financial bid of the petitioner is not opened, there would be loss of Rs. 7 lacs to the State exchequer. In support of aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by a Bench of this Court in Harpal Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 3836/2012, decided on 3-4-2012.