SOM DISTILLERIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order passed vide Annexure -G whereby the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were granted contracts for supply of country spirit for the areas of Bhopal and Indore, and further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for grant of contract for the aforesaid places to the Petitioner as his offer was the lowest.

(2.) THE essential facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that a notification was issued in M.P. Rajpatra dated 6.2.95 inviting sealed tenders for supply of country spirit in sealed bottles for various districts mentioned therein for the period 1.4.95 to 31.3.96. Each distillery was free to tender for any one area or more than one area. The tenderer was required to give the rate for supply and to give other particulars besides earnest money. The condition No. 4 (v) of the tender notice required that alongwith the application the tenderer was to supply a certificate from the Excise Commissioner that the distillery has already installed or has taken sufficient measure to instal effluent treatment plant in the distillery and would not be closed on the ground of no or inadequate effluent measures during the period of contract. The Petitioner submitted his tender for supply of country spirit for Indore and Bhopal alongwith other areas. The rate quoted by the Petitioner for Indore area was Rs. 11.99/ -. Negotiations were held and at that time of negotiations the Petitioner reduced his rate to Rs. 8.50/ - which was the lowest. The Respondent No. 3 had given the rate at Rs. 12.22/ - and reduced it to Rs. 9.90/ - at the time of negotiation. It is averred that the contract was awarded for supply of country spirit for Indore area to Respondent No. 3 which was higher by Rs. 1.40/ - than that of the Petitioner. In respect of supply to Bhopal area the Petitioner had quoted the rate at Rs. 7.24/ - and during the negotiation he further reduced the rate to Rs. 6.75/ -. The rate of Respondent No. 4 was Rs. 11.99/ - and he reduced it to Rs. 7.00/ - during negotiation. However, ignoring the lower rate of the Petitioner, the said Respondent was awarded the contract for Bhopal area. According to the Petitioner it is a reputed concern and the rates quoted by it was workable and there was no speculation. It is alleged that the matter was placed before the Cabinet Sub Committee (hereinafter referred as to 'the committee') under the Chairmanship of the Finance Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the Committee did not accept the lowest rate of the Petitioner and awarded the contract in favour of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of Indore and Bhopal areas respectively. It is also putforth that the Respondent No. 4 has been allotted 51.09% supply in the State of M.P. in different names and Respondent No. 3 has received 13.2% and the Petitioner has received 9.46% only. It is alleged that the award of contract is not justified and there was no special circumstances to weigh in favour of the said Respondents. It is alleged that the Cabinet Special Committee has taken extraneous material into consideration for recommending, and on the basis of the said recommendations the State Government further recommended to the Excise Commissioner for award of contract which is arbitrary and violative of conscience of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also alleged that the Respondent No. 4 -Company does not have Cearance certificate from the Pollution Control Board and (sic) on the basis of certain interim orders passed by Indore Bench of the High Court. There is also allegation that the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been shown undue favour which vitiates the grant in entirety.

(3.) A return has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the entire action of the Petitioner has been criticised. As far as the reduction of the rates, averments have been made justifying the process of negotiations and the ultimate result. It is also stated that the State Government has fixed a uniform price for many areas to avoid unhealthy competition and to achieve, equitable distribution of the supply areas to all the tenderers by entering into contracts for supply of country spirit depending upon manufacturing capability of the tenderers, rates offered by them, number of tenderers and such other relevant factors. It is also alleged that the Petitioner has notacted in a bonafide manner as he has tried to blow hot and cold at the same time as he has taken advantages of the procedure of negotiation by getting Betul and Jabalpur, more so, when he is getting more rate (Rs. 9.90) than the rates offered by him (Rs. 9.15) for Jabalpur and Rs. 7.24/ - for Betul, It is also averred that the rates tendered by the Petitioner for Indore supply area was Rs. 11.99 per proof litre againstthe rate of Rs. 9.99/ - tendered by the Respondent No. 3 and had the Petitioner reduced its rate for the said area during negotiation the said Respondent Would have got opportunity to further reduce its rates. However, eventually it was given to the said Respondent at the uniform rate of Rs. 9.90/ - as fixed by the State Government.