JAIDEV JAIN AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is obtained against an order rejecting petitioner's tender and accepting the one submitted by the respondent No. 3.

(2.) Tenders were invited by the Chief Commercial Superintendent. Eastern Railway, for street collection and delivery of goods and parcels from Calcutta and Baranagore Booking Offices and also from several other stations. The petitioner as also others submitted their tenders in the form and manner indicated by the authorities. On 6th April, 1970, these tenders were opened in the presence of the petitioner when it was found that only two other tenders were received besides the petitioner's one, of respondent No. 3 and the other, of one Ram Kumar Agarwalla. Of these three tenders only two namely those of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were found in order but the rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than the rates quoted by the respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the tender submitted by the respondent No. 3 did not moreover conform to the rules contained in Clauses (15) and (17) of the tender form. Even so, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 considered and ultimately accepted the tender of the respondent No. 3 in preference to the petitioner. In spite of repeated representations the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not cancel the acceptance of such tender. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the acceptance of the tender submitted by respondent No. 3 on consequential rejection of the petitioner's tender is in contravention of rules and provisions embodied in the form of the tender. Secondly, it is stated that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner offends against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and amounts to illegal discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. Thirdly, it is submitted, in any event, cancellation of the petitioner's tender without giving an opportunity of hearing has violated the rules and principles of natural justice but no such ground. I find was taken in this form in the writ petition.