 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5367 /2008 ( Shrushti Collection vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 31st March, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr P C Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr G G Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is as under : Respondent on earlier occasion issued the tender notice dated 5.9.2008, whereby eligible bidders were invited to submit their tenders for supply of uniforms. The petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to the said advertisement within the prescribed period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a categorical statement that the Standing Committee in the meeting held on 3.10.2008 accepted the tender of petitioner, it being the lowest one and the minutes of the said meeting came to be confirmed on 1.11.2008 (both these documents are at pages 15, 16 and 17 of the petition).  3. It is contended that once the tender of the petitioner was accepted by the Standing Committee, the Chief Executive Officer was only required to implement the decision of the Standing Committee by completing formalities, such as, execution of contract and issuance of work order etc. However, the Chief Executive Officer, for the reasons best known to him, cancelled the earlier tender process and issued another tender notice dated 10.12.2008, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per the new tender notice, the last date of submission of tender was 26.12.2008. However, till that date, respondent- Zilla Parishad did not receive any tender. It is contended that the Chief Executive Officer permitted the tenders to file the tender after the last date of submission of tenders stated in the Tender Notice dated 10.12.2008 and, therefore, all these tenders are invalid and could not have been permitted to be submitted by the Chief Executive Officer. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent-Zilla Parishad has submitted that action of cancellation of first tender taken by the Chief Executive Officer is in larger interest since rates quoted by the petitioner were very very high for supply of uniforms. Similarly as required by the procedure, rates quoted in the tender/s are required to be certified by Chief Accounts & Finance Officer who is financial adviser to the Zilla Parishad. It is  contended that in the instant case, though the Standing Committee took up the subject of grant of tender on its agenda at the eleventh hour and approved it, however, the rates quoted in the tender were neither placed before the CAFO nor were approved by the said authority and, therefore, in view of stipulation in the tender document itself, the Chief Executive Officer was empowered to cancel the tender. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent -Zilla Parishad had further contended that Zilla Parishad has issued fresh tender notice dated 10.12.2008 and the last date of submission of tender was 26.12.2008. Pursuant to the said tender notice, five tenders were submitted by the tenderers before the last date of submission. However, the Chief Executive Officer under the misconception of fact that the process of tender is stayed by the Court, returned those tenders to the tenderers. At a later point of time, it was noticed that this Court has not stayed fresh tender process initiated by Zilla Parishad and, therefore, accepted those tenders and since the matter is sub-judice before this Court, those tenders were not processed further by the Zilla Parishad. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court called the original tenders and, therefore, Respondent-Zilla Parishad kept all the original tenders in a sealed envelope and kept ready for the perusal of this Court. 7. Considered the rival contentions. It is well-settled that lowest bid, though is very  important criteria for acceptance of tender, however, in a given case, for adequate reasons, the Authorities can deviate therefrom. However, such deviation should not be in any eventuality result in causing loss to the public body or affect the public interest. 8. In the instant case, before we consider the issue on merit, we would like to observe that we have opened the envelope and perused the tenders submitted by five tenderers pursuant to the tender notice dated 10.12.2008. The price quoted therein by some of the tenderers is much less than Rs.100/-. It is not in dispute that the tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier tender notice, though lowest amongst tenderers those who had submitted tenders along with the petitioner, however, the rates quoted were Rs. 280/- per uniform for boys and Rs. 290/- per uniform for girls. It is, therefore, evident that the price quoted by the petitioner was exorbitantly high and the same was also not approved by the Chief Accounts & Finance Officer. The price quoted by the tenderers pursuant to the second tender notice being much below the price quoted by the petitioner, action of the Chief Executive Officer in cancelling the earlier tender process, in our view, is in the larger public interest and would also protect the monetary interest of Zilla Parishad. It is in such peculiar circumstances, we do not want to show any indulgence in the present Writ Petition. However, it  is made clear that the Zilla Parishad, though entitled to accept the lowest bid submitted by tenders pursuant to the second tender notice, however, specification in respect of quality of cloth must be consistent with the condition incorporated in the tender notice in this regard and the Chief Executive Officer shall not deviate from the same in any case. With these observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. Tenders should be returned to the counsel for Zilla Parishad forthwith in a sealed condition, for further action. JUDGE JUDGE sahare