Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Vortex Builders Private Limited v. The Indian Turpentine And Rosion Company Limited & Others - WRIT - C No. 10291 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4331 (23 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10291 of 2006

M/s. Vortex Builders Private Limited


The Indian Turpentine and Rosion Company Limited and others


Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

We have heard Sri U. N. Sharma senior advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi for the petitioner.

       The petitioner is merely the highest tenderer, which does not, by itself, give him any right to have his tender accepted. In all, there were only three tenders received; one from the Bareilly Development Authority, one from the Avas Vikas Parishad and the third one from the petitioner, which is a private concern. The tenders were subject to approval by the Assets Sale Committee, which has refused to accept and grant approval to any of these tenders. The impugned order dated 26.10.2005 does not disclose any reasons.

Normally, in all the tender documents there is a condition, which, in the present case, can be found as a condition no. 4 at page 16 that the right to reject all or any tender "without assigning any reason" is reserved.

In substance the argument of he learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely because (1) the petitioner was the highest tenderer, (2) the impugned order does not disclose reasons for rejecting all tenders, and (3) the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition with court fee of Rs. 100/-, therefore, the respondents are bound to disclose, by way of counter affidavit, the reasons for refusing to grant approval and rejecting all the tenders. In our opinion, the right reserved to reject tenders "without assigning reasons" cannot be defeated merely because of all or any of the aforesaid three circumstances, without anything further.

It is true that arbitrary action is not permissible on the part of the respondent, and rational and relevant reasons though not necessary to be disclosed, must exist for such rejection. But for requiring the Court to direct the authorities to disclose the reasons to the Court, even if not to the petitioner, requires something more than merely saying that the order rejecting the tenders does not mention any reason. We do not find any such further circumstance or fact in this writ petition over and above the non-mentioning of reasons in the impugned order which may persuade us to call for a return or to call for the record for examining the reasons for rejecting the tenders.

The fact that the draft of earnest money submitted by the petitioner has been encashed, even before approval, is also not a sufficient ground for seeking disclosure of the reasons. The amount is to be returned/refunded to the petitioner.

On the face of it, the fact that only one private bidder has come forward may be good enough reason on the part of the Assets Sale Committee in believing that proper advertisement has not taken place in calling for tenders for the sale of the valuable property and thinking that upon a better publicity more and higher offers may be obtained. The vehement arguments from the petitioner's side showing the petitioner's keen-ness, through this writ petition, for this deal itself is a ground for suspicion on our part that the petitioner is walking away with the property at a price considerably lower than what can be obtained upon re-advertisement. Otherwise the petitioner would have taken a chance at the fresh advertisement, in which the petitioner can get a better bargain as it has been stated in the petition that in the rejected tenders the petitioner's bid was Rs. 2,90,07,000/-, whereas the next highest bid was only Rs. 2,42,00,000/-.    

In view of above, we refuse to interfere in the matter in our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dated : 23.2.2006.


Writ No. 10291-06.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.