RASHMI MEHATA Vs. CALCUTTA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th of June, 1992 dismissing the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant in Matter No. 3842 of 1991. The respondent, Calcutta Port Trust Authorities in January, 1991 issued Notice inviting Tenders (NIT in short) for grant of lease of two separate plots of land situated at Boat Canal near its junction with Alipore Avenue, Calcutta. The appellant submitted tenders along with supporting papers as required for obtaining lease of plot "A" category of land measuring 700 sq. mt. within the stipulated time. The rate quoted by the appellant was the highest but the appellant received a letter dated 13th April, 1991 from the respondent No. 3 by which she was informed that her tender was not accepted and she was advised to take refund of the earnest money. According to the appellant, the rejection of the tender by the appellant was arbitrary, illegal and capricious. A lawyer's letter was sent on behalf of the appellant to the Port Authorities to rescind the letter sent by the Port Authorities rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, she filed a writ application in this Hon'ble Court for appropriate reliefs. The writ application was contested by the respondents. The learned Trial Judge has been pleased to held that the respondents had good reason to reject the tender of the appellant.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge the appellant has come before this Court. The appeal is also contested by the respondents.

(3.) It has been argued by the Learned Lawyer for the appellant that the NIT (marked Annexure "A" to the Memo of Appeal) does not lay down any condition that the applicant cannot be a private individual. His client has emptied with all the terms and conditions of the lease as contained in the NIT and therefore the action of the respondent authorities in sending the letter of rejection dated 13th April, 1991 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and capricious, specially in the context that the rate quoted by her was the highest. In paragraph 4 of the written objection filed by the respondents it has been stated that the condition of the NIT along with the prescribed application form for lease required certain essential particulars which were not furnished by the appellant and as such the tender of the appellant was rejected. The Learned Lawyer for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Column VII of the application form for lease (marked Annexure "B") to the writ petition which reads as follows :