MOHAR SINGH KHATRI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance, to an advertisement notice, borne in Annexure P-1, and, wherethrough(s) tenders became invited, for, collection of Adda entry fee, on lease basis, extending for a period of 11 months, vis-a-vis the new bus stand Rampur Bushehar, (i) the writ petitioner participated therein, and, also became declared L-1 (ii) and also as unfolded in Annexure P-2, he deposited, a sum of Rs.1,39,320/-, before the Regional Manager, HRTC Rampur Bushehar. Moreover, an agreement borne in Annexure P-4 became drawn inter-se the writ petitioner, and, the authorized officer, of, the respondents. The date of drawing of the agreement, embodied in Annexure P-4, is, 1st August, 2019. However, on 5.9.2020, the Divisional Manager, HP BSM & DA, Tutikandi Shimla-4, made an intimation to the Regional Manager, HRTC Rampur, with echoings therein, vis-a-vis, the competent authority rather rejecting the recommendation(s), of, the selection committee, hence declaring the writ petitioner as L-1, vis-a-vis, the auction notice, borne in Annexure P-1. The writ petitioner, becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, has motioned this Court, for, annulling Annexure P-3.

(2.) The reasons as become meted by the respondents, in their reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, is embodied, in the factum, of, existence, of, clause 10 in the tender form, hence investing in the selection committee, an authorization, to accept or reject any tender, and, that too without assigning any reason. Moreover, it has also been contended, in the reply, on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, that, the amount comprised in Annexure P-2, becoming returned, to, the writ petitioner.

(3.) Even though, the apposite committee is invested, through, a mandate borne in clause 10, of, the tender document, to at any time, and, without assigning any reasons, rescind the bid, and, also the official or the committee concerned, is invested with a further leverage to make recourse to the apposite rebidding process. Moreover though trite expostulations of law, vindicate the empowerment(s) borne, in, the afore clause, of, the tender document, and, also pronounce qua theirs being unamenable, for, any judicial review, qua therewith being made, by the writ Court, (a) unless dependence(s) thereon, by the committee concerned, is, demonstrated, by cogent evidence, to become prodded, by constitutionally prohibited vices, of, arbitrariness or capriciousness, arising from, despite many bidders participating in the bidding process, and, therethrough there occurring competition, yet the bidding process being rescinded. However, in absence of, proof, of the afore vices becoming borne, in, the exercisings, of, the contractual rescinding power, hence by the committee concerned, and with the petitioner being not projected to be the single bidder, and, yet for ensuring a higher quantum of bid, than the bid accepted by the committee concerned, thereupon the rescinding of his bid, for, thereafter the rebidding process, being recoursed hence become an invalidly made recourse.