JATANLAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the authority of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 Supreme Court, P. 1601, it has been contended that in the circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff non -petitioner No. 4 could not be granted contract, as the petitioner was one of the Bidder in the initial auction and pursuant to the letter of the Chairman inviting for negotiations, he had given the offer of Rs. 1,50,000/ -, as against which the plaintiff claims the contract only for a sum of Rs. 86,000/ - and thus since the grant of contract to the petitioner would have been for the financial benefits of the Municipality, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.

(2.) SUFFICE it to say that totality of circumstances, prima -facie speaks volumes about the things that appear to be going on, in as much as according to the petitioner he had given offer on 1.5.2000, even according to him his offer had not been accepted and admittedly he did not file any suit seeking to restrain the Municipality from not giving contract to the plaintiff or to anybody else than the petitioner, not only this, the petitioner came in the picture only by filing appeal against the interim injunction granted by the trial court on 22.5.2000 though with permission of the learned appellate court. It is significant to note that even before the learned appellate court the appeal was filed only by the Chairman and not by the Municipal Council. Be that as it may. The two appeals i.e. one filed by the Chairman and other filed by the petitioner were dismissed way back on 12.7.2000. Then again despite the petitioner having obtained the certified copy of the order on 13.7.2000 itself has filed this revision as late as on 26.7.2000 and the intervening circumstances are that against this very order of the learned appellate court, the Chairman had filed the revision before this Court being S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 447/2000 which was dismissed by me on 20.7.2000 by passing a speaking order and thus after getting results of that revision petition, the present revision petition has been filed. This circumstance does generate a lurking suspicion in my mind, prima -facie to the effect that it appears that the petitioner and the Chairman are hands in glove. I do not mean to record any finding to this effect so as to prejudice anyone, but only mean to take it as a circumstance to decline interference in the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner against the impugned orders. The way in which the thing are proceeding, the possibilities are not ruled out that after the Chairman and the Commissioner had signed on the auction proceedings accepting the bid of the plaintiff (as observed by the learned lower Appellate Court) it appears that for reasonings not coming on record, the forces are afoot to somehow prevent the plaintiff from getting the contract and in that garb to allow the erstwhile contractor to continue. One big reason for my this apprehension is that the contract is for a short period of one year being for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 and the auction was scheduled on 17.4.2000, bid was accepted on 20.4.2000 and acceptance letter was issued and thereafter only troubles are created on the pretext that the acceptance of the bid of the plaintiff could be only by the Council.

(3.) SO far as the loss claimed to be likley to be caused to the petitioner on account of his not getting contract pursuant to offer given by him in response to the Chairman's letter dated 27.4.2000 is concerned, if so advised and if the law so permits, the petitioner may have his remedies by way of suit for damages. But then the petitioner is not entitled to prevent the plaintiff from getting the relief as given by the impugned orders by the learned courts below.