High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Consolidators Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Chairman, Noida & Others - WRIT - C No. 49105 of 2004  RD-AH 11695 (18 July 2006)
Court No. 1
1. WP No. 49105 of 2004
M/s Consolidators Information System vs. Chairman NOIDA and others
2. WP No. 52894 of 2004
M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chairman NOIDA and others
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J
Hon'ble RK Rastogi, J
1. NOIDA advertised for allotment of some plots in commercial scheme in sectors no. 1, 36, 63 and 110 on the basis of sealed tenders. The applications were to be accompanied with earnest money of Rs. 15 lakhs. M/s Consolidators Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed tender for allotment of plot no. H-A1/45 in sector 63. M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. also gave tender for this plot. There is another plot namely plot no. H-1A/46 in Sector 63. M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. gave tender for this plot also. One M/s Vansha Industries Ltd. also gave tender for plot no. H-1A/46 sector 63. The tenders were to be opened on 15th October 2004 but this date was postponed and the tenders were opened on 26.10.2004. Plot no. H-1A/45 Sector 63 has been allotted to M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd whereas plot no. H-1A/46 sector 63 has been allotted to M/s Vansha Industries Ltd. M/s Consolidators Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed WP No. 49105 of 2004 challenging allotment to M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. whereas M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. filed WP No. 52894 of 2004 challenging the allotment of plot no. H-1A/46 in sector 63 to M/s Vansha Industries Ltd.
2. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, counsel for M/s Consolidators Information System Pvt. Ltd., Sri AB Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vimlendu Tripathi for M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd., Sri MS Vinayak and Ms. Roma Hamid for M/s Vansha Industries Ltd., the standing counsel for the State of UP, and Sri VB Upadhyay, senior Advocate assisted by Sri VP Mathur counsel for NOIDA.
3. In WP No. 49105 of 2004, it is not disputed that for plot no. H-1A/45 sector 63 M/s Consolidators Information Systems had given bid of Rs. 48,888/- per sq. Metre. There is dispute between the parties as to what was the bid given by M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. for this plot. According to NOIDA the bid of M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 49,999/- per sq. Metre whereas according to M/s Consolidators Information Systems this bid was only for Rs. 41,999/- per sq. Metre and later on some forgery was done to make it Rs. 49,999/- per sq. Metre.
4. Tenders were opened in front of the parties. In the writ petition it is nowhere mentioned that these tenders were not opened in front of parties. It is also not alleged that at the time of opening the bid was Rs. 41,999/- per sq. Metre. No objection was filed at the time when tenders were opened. Written objection was filed for the first time on 4th November 2004 by M/s Consolidators Information Systems after receiving back the draft of Rs. 15 lakhs on 1st November 2004. This objection seems to be an after thought. In view of this it can not be said that the bid amount was changed.
5. The counsel for M/s Consolidators Information Systems submits that this draft was accepted under protest and a supplementary affidavit on behalf of M/s Consolidators Information Systems has been filed in which it is stated that this draft was sent by registered post and it was accepted under protest, which was recorded in the acknowledgement. This is incorrect.
6. The original record is before us. In the tender application of M/s Consolidators Information Systems it has been recorded on their behalf that draft is being received back on 1.11.2004. This is without any protest. In view of this it cannot be said that the draft was accepted under protest.
7. We have also examined the original tender. It is correct that in the first figure of nine from the left, at the bottom some addition has been done, but it is also clear that this figure was never '1' which was allegedly made '9'. If this figure had originally been '1' and had been subsequently written as '9', the entire vertical line of '9' must have been straight but a perusal of this figure as written in the tender goes to show that there is a curve below the circle in the figure '9' and the line is not straight. This fact makes it clear that this figure was never '1' and it was originally written as '9'. In view of this it cannot be said that in place of '1', '9' has been added to make 49,999/- in place of 41,999/-.
8. The counsel for Consolidators Information Systems next submitted that in the tender form the rate was to be mentioned in figures as well as in words but in the form only figure has been indicated and so the tender of M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. ought to have been rejected on this ground.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by NOIDA, a report has been filed. It is mentioned therein that for some other plots also amount was mentioned in figure only and it was not mentioned in words. It was merely a directory provision. The NOIDA has accepted the tender of highest amount. Considering the circumstances, it cannot be said that the NOIDA acted arbitrarily in accepting the form where the amount was mentioned in figures only. There is no merit in WP 49105 of 2004.
10. In WP 52894 of 2004 M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd had given bid of Rs. 52,999/- per sq. Metre. M/s Vansha Industries Ltd. had also given their bid. There is variation in the amount mentioned in the bid of M/s Vansha Industries Ltd. In figures it is Rs. 55,901/- per sq. Metre and in words it is mentioned as 50,901/- per sq. Metre. According to the counsel for M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd., the bid of M/s Vansha Industries Ltd ought to have been rejected as there was difference in the amount mentioned in figures and words.
11. There is no doubt that the amount mentioned in figure in the bid of M/s Vansha Industries Ltd. was higher than the bid of M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd though the bid mentioned in the words was lower. NOIDA authority has accepted the higher bid. In these circumstances, it can not be said that the action of NOIDA authority was unreasonable or arbitrary. There is no merit in WP 52894 of 2004 also.
12. The counsel for M/s Rishabh Buldicon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Vansha Industries submitted that
They had deposited initial amount with NOIDA but did not deposit the remaining amount as possession was not handed over to them;
They could not get possession of the plots due to interim order granted by this court; and
They may not be levied with interest on the balance amount.
13. We see no justification to go into this question in these writ petitions. They may raise these points by means of filing applications before the CEO NOIDA. In case such applications are filed, then they may be considered in accordance with law. With these observations both the writ petitions are dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of WP No. 52894 of 2004.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.