SCA/9035/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9035 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= SUN COMMUNICATION Versus MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS ========================================= Appearance : MR AJAY S JAGIRDAR for the Petitioner MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent No.2 MR AMAR N BHATT and MR KP VAISHNAV for Respondent No.4 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 29/01/2008 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) RULE. Mr. Pranav G, Desai, learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. A.J. Shastri, learned advocate for Respondent No.2, and Mr. Amar N. Bhatt, learned advocate for Respondent No.4, waive service of Rule. SCA/9035/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the decision of Baroda Municipal Corporation to award contract to respondent No.2 for putting up hoardings at various sites in the city of Baroda. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. 3. The contracts were awarded by letter dated 30.10.2006 of the Municipal Commissioner to respondent No.2 indicating the sites, number of hoardings, size and the amounts to be paid by respondent No.2 to the Municipal Corporation. The contracts are awarded for a period of three years. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the contracts were awarded without issuing any public advertisement, therefore, the action was arbitrary. It is submitted that the petitioner is prepared to offer higher amount than the rates at which the contracts are awarded to respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Amar Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.4, has also submitted that respondent No.4 is prepared to offer higher rate. So, reliance is also placed by Mr. Amar Bhatt on the affidavit filed by respondent No.4. 6. In response to the notice, affidavits-in-reply have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, i.e. Baroda Municipal Corporation, and on behalf of respondent No.2, beneficiary of the contract. It is the case of the respondents that the contracts have been awarded after considering the tenders, which were filed by the parties, including respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 in response to advertisement no.596/2004-05 dated 2.3.2005. It is also stated that the petitioner did not apply in response to the said advertisement and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the contracts awarded in favour of respondent No.2. SCA/9035/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 7. Even on the basis that the action of the respondent Corporation cannot be said to be arbitrary inasmuch as the respondent Corporation had issued an advertisement and respondent No.2 and others had submitted tenders, we cannot overlook the fact that the advertisement was issued on 2.3.2005 and the tenders were invited by 15.3.2005. The parties had accordingly submitted their rates on the basis of the market rates prevailing in March, 2005. However, the contract was awarded to respondent No.2 on 30.10.2006 and the term of the contract is three years. If the Corporation had issued fresh advertisement in August/ September, 2006, the offers received in response to such advertisement would have been much higher and the public exchequer would have benefited. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth for such delay, except administrative procedure followed by the Corporation. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that considering the fact that respondent No.2 has already installed the hoardings on the basis of the impugned contracts, the contracts awarded to respondent No.2 are not required to be disturbed with immediate effect. At the same time, considering the fact that respondent No.2 has been given benefit of putting up the hoardings for a period of three years on the basis of the rates, which were invited way back in March, 2005, it would be just and proper to direct the Corporation to curtail the term of the contract from three years to two years, that is to say from 01.11.2006 to 30.10.2008. Before expiry of the said period, i.e. at least in August/September, 2008, the Corporation shall invite fresh tenders for the period from 01.11.2008, subject to such terms and conditions as the Corporation would deem fit. 9. The petition is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that respondent No.2 shall be permitted to continue with the contracts awarded to respondent No.2 by letters SCA/9035/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT dated 30.10.2006 only for a period of two years, subject to fulfillment of the other terms and conditions of the contracts already entered into between the Corporation and respondent No.2. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S. SHAH, J.) (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) omkar