AROMA ENTERPRISE Vs. MURSHIDABAD ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute, raised by the petitioners, is arising out of fairness in dealing with the tender issued by Murshidabad Zilla Parishad.

(2.) Under normal circumstances, writ Court is very much slow in interfering in respect of tender or contract matters which are in the nature of commercial dispute by holding a view that Civil Court or Forum made for it, is the appropriate Forum for adjudication. However, judicial view changed its mind very much after the principles laid down in the case of Mahabir Auto v. Indian Oil Corpn. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1031. The ratio of the judgment is, in entering or not entering into the contract with the governmental authorities fair play, indiscrimination, arbitrariness might have been the governing factor for entertaining the writ petition. Since Mr. Malay Kumar Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners, said that the dispute is in the nature of fairness of the authority by holding a prima facie view, the Court entertained this matter and directed the parties to file their respective affidavits for the purpose of due consideration. The interim order was passed only to the extent that if any fund is allotted in favour of the Zilla Parishad by Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojona the same will not be refunded back by the Zilla Parishad without the leave of the Court.

(3.) Factually the petitioners contended before this Court that the concerned Zilla Parishad issued a notice inviting tender in respect of construction of various roads. There are altogether nine items under the notice. Tenderers deposited their tenders giving lower side of the price fixed by the authority in the tender document. The petitioners are participants of tender in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9. In respect of item Nos. 3 and 4 work orders have already been issued. In respect of item Nos. 7 and 8, 12.98% below than the estimated rates have been accepted. There, the dispute lies. The petitioners contended that nature of acceptance of the tender of the tenderers in respect of item Nos. 7 and 8 is totally unfair and discriminatory.