JANATA BAKERY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges that he had been supplying bread pursuant to certain contracts with the respondents for about long 13 years till 1999. For the year 2000-2001 a fresh contract has been entered into between the Naval authorities and the respondent No. 7. But, it is alleged by the petitioner that the quality of the bread supplied by the respondent No. 7 has been reported to be unhygenic by the health authorities. It is also contended that the Naval authorities have been purchasing bread from the petitioner almost regularly. In the circumstances, he has made a representation which is contained in Annexure "P2" to the writ petition wherein he has requested the Naval authorities to obtain a report from the health authorities and also to inspect the working of the respondent No. 7, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, only contends that this representation may be considered according to law. According to him, this will not prejudice the respondents in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, this Court should issue a direction for consideration of the representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Swaroop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contends that he has instruction in this matter to submit that the respondent No. 7 has been regularly supplying bread according to the terms of the contract and there is no report to the effect that the bread supplied are not hygenic. However, Mr. Swaroop points out that the petitioner has no locus standi to submit whether the contract with the respondent No. 7 will continue or not. He cannot compel the respondent Naval authority to enter into a contract with him. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the concerned respondent authority to consider his representation. It is only if a legal obligation is cast upon the respondent, the Court can direct the Naval authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is a matter between the respondent No. 7 and the Naval authorities, to which the petitioner is completely a stranger. In any (sic) according to him, the petitioner has no locus standi to interfere with the management or with the decision taken by the Naval authorities. An unsuccessful tenderer cannot claim any right with regard to the acceptance of the contract or rejection of the same. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. Bagla & Co. Vs. Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Cal.) 443

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length.