INDIAN STEEL AND METAL INDUSTRIES SANAT NAGAR, BARZULLA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MIR Vs. POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS invited tender notices (NIT No 138 -48 dated 25/04/1997) in respect of specified works of providing and fixing of gates and gearings to head works and silting basin of Pahalgam, MHP on conditions and terms specified in the notice as inviting tenders. In all six tenders were received. Tenders of MIS J&K Engineering Works, Baramulla and M/S Indian Steel and Metal Industrtes Sanat Nagar, Burzalla, were placed at No.1 and No.2 respectively as the lowest tenders. The contract Committee which dealt with these tenders, constituted an expert committee to examine and report about the technical capabilities and financial soundness of the tenderers. This expert committee gave its report. The contract Committee after examining the matter and taking into account the report, factors and circumstances decided to call fresh tenders subject to approval of Managing Director, J&K State, Power Development Corporation Srinagar M/S Indian Steel and Metal Industries Sanat Nagar, Barzulla, feeling aggrieved of the decision of the contract Committee and retendering of the works, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, in terms seeking the restraint order for defendants to accept the tender of the plaintiff and allot this work on the terms and conditions of the tender which plaintiff tendered. Coextensive, with this suit the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. The suit with said miscellaneous application was transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge (Forest Magistrate) Srinagar. The Forest Magistrate, after calling the objections and hearing the parties, ultimately dismissed the application and declined the relief of temporary injunction vide order dated 10/11/1997. Against this order, plaintiff/revision petitioner filed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on contest by Court of Addl. District Judge Srinagar vide its order dated 27/12/1997. The petitioner unsuccessful before the trial court and appellate court, is assailing the order of District Judge and Sub Judge in this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the matter. In the memo, the decision of the contract Committee to re -tender the work is the main grouse of the plaintiff. The counsel submits that the action of the respondents in rejecting the recommendations of the Expert Committee and re -tendering the work by respondents is unfair and discriminatory. The plaintiff has been dealt with not fairly and not according to rules. The public interest demanded that the work should have been allotted to his client Besides, as his client has been extended promise of allotment of the work, his legitimate expectations were nm met The promissory estopple applies to this case.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents has refuted the pleas and supported tile impugned orders of the two sub -courts.