UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. K. BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a common judgment dtd. 24/6/2022 the Learned Single Judge has disposed of four Writ Petitions being WPA 7505 of 2022 With WPA 7509 of 2022 With WPA 7511 of 2022 With WPA 7514 of 2022). Two appeals filed against the said judgment are also being disposed of by the instant common judgment.

(2.) (Re: Hospital Road Lake, Petrol Pump Lake and Office Road Lake)

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant in MAT 1200/2022, Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya has challenged the above impugned judgment on several grounds: First, the Hon'ble Single Judge merely referred to the principles of law, without coming to any findings that the Appellants herein had acted arbitrarily. Secondly, the entire issue could have been decided on the undisputed documentary evidences forming part of the writ petition. Thirdly, the appellants laid emphasis on the issue of "eo nominee", meaning that whenever an issue of malice / mala-fide/arbitrariness is claimed, one has to name the persons involved personally and not merely make offices party respondents, and in this regard the learned Counsel submitted the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 289 [In re: Federation of Railway Officers Association and others Vs. Union of India] in support of his contention that allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specific and clear. Fourthly, though an Arbitration clause forms a part of the Tender document, at no point of time any dispute has been raised for adjudication/ trial thereunder; Fifthly, the decisions relied upon by the Appellants before the Learned Single Judge, were neither discussed nor distinguished and merely it was observed that the same would be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Sixthly, the appellants' submissions with regard to its obligations under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as per decision reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 [In re: Special Reference No.1 of 2012], were not addressed at the time of passing the impugned order. Seventhly, ignoring the aforesaid aspects, the new tender dtd. 6/5/2022 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Eighthly, the Learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported at (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 127 [In re: N. G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain with Others] where it is clearly held, "the writ court should refrain from imposing its decision on the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer..... If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract."