High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Raj Shyama Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others - WRIT - C No. 38191 of 2006  RD-AH 11866 (20 July 2006)
Court No. 34
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38191 of 2006
M/s. Raj Shyama Constructions Private Ltd. & Anr.,
State of U.P. & Ors.,
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
A short-term tender notice was published from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Bareilly Circle, P.W.D. inviting tenders for widening and strengthening of Paliya-Shahjahanpur-Hardoi-Lucknow Highway from ''A Class' contractors. The petitioner and other contractors submitted their tender documents. The technical bids were opened on 22nd June, 2006 and it was found that the technical bids of two contractors was not in order. Subsequently when the financial bid was opened the petitioner was found to be the sole responsive bidder. The Authorities have, therefore, taken a decision to issue a fresh advertisement inviting fresh tenders so that there can be a competition amongst the bidders. It is this decision taken by the Authorities, which has been impugned in the present petition.
We have heard Sri Rahul Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Sri Mishra strongly contended that earlier the Authorities had taken a decision to award the contract even when one bidder was found to be responsive and, therefore, the Authorities cannot be permitted to practice discrimination.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the decision taken by the Authorities in the present case cannot be said to be arbitrary as there will no competition at all since the petitioner is the sole responsive bidder. He further contends that if the Authorities have committed any mistake in the past, the same cannot be a ground to repeat the mistake in the present case.
We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
In the present case, it has been emphasised by the Authorities that the contract was for an amount of Rs. 45 Crores and, therefore, unless there was competition it would not be proper for them to award the contract to the sole bidder. This decision, in our opinion, cannot be said to be arbitrary and, therefore, we do find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners also does not impress us as Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. This view stands fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court eg., Snehprabha Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1996 SC 540; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321; and Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre Vs. D.G. Health Services & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 752. Even otherwise, Article 14 provides only for positive equality and not negative equality.
The writ petition is totally misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.