MD. ASLAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give any further effect to the tender submitted by the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The Ministry of Defence floated a tender through the regional office of M.S.T.C. Limited. The petitioner participated in the said tender. In the said tender notice, 129 items were offered for sale. The petitioner submitted his tender only in respect of one item, namely, Vaiga Boat, which was at serial No. 81 of the schedule of the said notice of lender, and he quoted his price therefore at Rs. 46,000.00. According to the petitioner, he was declare to be the highest bidder, but when no letter of intent was issued to him he made an enquiry and came to learn that the tender of the respondent No. 4 in respect of the said item has been accepted although the respondent No. 4 did not participate in the tender. Further contention of the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the respondent No. 4 allegedly submitted a composite tender in violation of clause 8.0 of the Special Terms and Conditions of Tender acceptance of tender of the said respondent must be held to be bad in law.

(3.) Mr. Maitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the writ application the petitioner has clearly stated that one Mr. Majumdar declared that the offer of the petitioner was the highest and the said statements have not been specifically denied, and as such, the respondent must be deemed to have accepted the same. Limited counsel submits that the respondents have acted illegally in accepting the tender of the respondent No. 4 and hereby the terms and conditions of tender have been violated. Reliance in this connection has been placed in the ease of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Firm Gobardhan Dass Kailash Nath reported in /SC/0033/1973: AIR 1973 SC 1164, as also on the decisions reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 and in the case of Harminder Singh Arora Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1986) 3 SCC 247.