RAJ KISHORE DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenderer for grant of exclusive privilege of wholesale supply of country spirit in the district of Koraput for the year 1985-86 is the petitioner impugning in this writ petition the settlement of the said privilege on opposite party No.4.

(2.) Pursuant to the tender notice issued under the signature of the Excise Commissioner, Orissa (Opposite party No.3) dated 26-12-1984 (Annexure A), the petitioner submitted his tender. There were three tenderers competing in the field and admittedly the petitioner's tender was the lowest being Re. 0.89 paise per L.P.Litre. According to the petitioner's case, he being the lowest tenderer, his offer should have been normally accepted, but without accepting his tender and even without cancelling the same, opposite party No.3 entered into negotiation with the petitioner as well as other tenderers. In the negotiation, the petitioner had offered to reduce the price to Re.0.84 paise per L. P. Litre. But the privilege was settled with opposite party No.4 after fixing the rate on negotiation with him at the rate of Re.0.80 paise per L.P.Litre. This settlement of the privilege with opposite party No.4 on negotiation has been challenged in this writ petition to be illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the tender notice itself.

(3.) In the return filed by the opposite parties, it has been contended that the tender notice clearly stipulated that the Member, Board of Revenue (Opposite Party No, 2) had the right to reject any or all tenders fully or partly without assigning any reason. It also further stipulated that the Member had a right to negotiate with any or all the tenderers or any other party or to re-invite the tender if he so desired. In this view of the matter, it was not necessary for the competent authority to reject the tenders before entering into negotiation. The excise authorities having invoked their power of negotiation and having settled the privilege with opposite party No.4 whose rate offered was lowest, have acted in accordance with the tender notice and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same.