ATTlsGARH : BILA$PUR (DlViSlON BENCH) CGRAM : HON’BLE $HRI V.K. SHASTAVA & HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MI$HRA. JJ WRIT ?ET3TION (CIVIL) NO. 46 OF 2007 Petitioner: M/s Bhawna Enterprises A Proprietorship Firm, Through its Proprietor Smt‘ Bhawna Agrawal, Wife of Shri S.K. Agrawai, Aged about 35 years, R/o Old Sarkanda, Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh, 1. State of Chhairtisgarh, Through Respondents : Secretary, Ministry of Foreai, Dau Kalyan Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Minor Forest Product (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited, A—25, VIP Estate, in front of VIP Club, Raipur 492 007. Fresent :- Shri Satish Agrawai, Shri Sunii Otwani and 3hri KK. Ttwari, learned counsei for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, teamed Additional Advocate Genera! for the State/respondents. Shri A.K. Singh, Managig Director, Chhattisgarh Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Federation Limited is also present. roRAL oRoER} (Passed on 10‘“ January, 2607) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. Respondent No2 for saie of Tendu leaves to be coilected in t'ne year 200T invited tenders/bide from prospective bidders to purchase the same vide notification No.T.P.(2007)-1 dated 641-2006, inter alia, on various terms and conditions. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm constituted and established to carry on the business of sale and purchase of Tendu leaves as well as other forest products. The petitioneLLs l l 1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHH RW Versus n 85 registered to carry on the business of sa!e and purchase of Tendu leaves with the State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Tendu Parfa (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamawaii, 1%6. Petitioner after depesiting earnest money approximateiy Rs.56.00 iacs submitted tender for the first round‘ Similarly bidders/tenderers across the State also submitted their bids/tenders to purchase Tendu leaves, The tenders/bids submitted were opened on 12—12-2006 and the price offered by the purchasers was made public on the same date. Petitiorler’s bid was highest in respect of units 764, 543, 679, 756, 755, 721, 754, 716, 776, 673, 672, 542, 394, 371, 369, 368, 367, 366, 321A, 321B & 323A and according to prevailing practice Within the normal period he was to be declared successful for those units and thereafter necessary formalities were required to be completed, but all of a sudden respondent No.2 vide Annexure-PH fioated another tender notice and rejected earlier bids submitted by the petitioner and other prospective bidders. 2) Annexure - P/1 reads as below : ”Resutt of first round of tender of tendu ieaves of 2067 season and information for the second round tender All the offers given by the tenderers in notification No. T.P.(2007)-1 dated 06.11.2006 (Tender opening Date 12.12.2006) have been rejected. The second round of the tender submission date is changed from 09.01.2007 to 11.01.2007 and the tender opening date is changed from 10.01.2007 to 12.01 .2007. The remaining conditions ofthe tender notification No.T.P.(2007)-l dated 06.11.2006 will remain same. The tenderers can use their E.iVl.D. deposited in first round of tender in second round of tender. The tenderers of first round who are interested in taking the refund of EMD. should send their request to the Federation. The tenderers are specifically advised :— 1. To enciose the registration of Manufactured Exporter of tendu leaves for the year 2007 and not for the year 2006. ‘2. The tenderer must download the Tender Form along with Tenderer’s Agreement (total pages 10) and must sign the tender form and tenderer‘s agreement. The tenderers should not downioad the’model tender form from tendtajwdition/ 3 3. Click the Lot List option at Home page. After that click the tender form option in iot list page and then downioad the tender form in Hindi or English.“ 3) Petitioner stating various facte, aileging arbitrariness, vioiation of principles of natural justice, “legitimacy, unreasonable and unfairness, instituted the instant petition & M.(W.).P.No.?2 of 2007 for grant of "following relief/ad-interim relief : “Relief : i, issue writ of certiorari, order, command, instructions to the reepondents to call for entire record of tender received pursuant to Notification No. TP (2007)el and quash the order dated 51.2007: ii. issue a writ of mandamus, order, command, instructions to the respondents to confirm to the results declared on 12.12.2006 and declare the petitioner as successful bidder in respect of the Units (i.e. 764, 543, 6.79, 756, 755, 721, 754, 716, 776, 673, 672, 542, 394, 371, 369, 368, 367, 366, 321-A, 321:8, 323-A maximum capacity) in which prices offered by petitioner were highest and resuitantly issue a letter of allotment to the petitioner; iii. Pass any other or further order deemed fit and necessary in\ the facts and circumstances of the case.“ “Ad-interim relifef - {M.(W.).P.No.72 of 2007} : i. Stay the operation of order dated 05.01.2007; in alternative; ii. Direct the respondent No.2 not to take any bid on the 180 lots in which petitioner has offered highest bid; in alternative; iii. Direct the respondent No.2 to not open /read the bid offered by prospective bidders as much as the same relate to 180 lots in which petitioner has offered highest bid; iv. Pass any other or further order (s) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the matter.” 4) During the course of arguments, learned counsei for the petitioner piaced reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court rerElered in ‘ l the foiiowing cases : 4 K.N. Guruswamy vs. The State of Mysore and others1 Mohmder Slngh Gm and another vs. The Chief Elec‘kion Commissloenr New Delhi e Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. lntemationai Airpert Authority of india and others3 s M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, etc. vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and anether" Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and others5 Shri Harminder Singh Arora vs. Union of india and otheree Haji TM. Hassan Rawther vs. Keraia Financiai Corporation7 M/s Star Enterprises and others vs City and lndustriai Deveiopment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd And others e Food Corporation of india vs M/s Kamcihenu Cattie Feed Industries a Steriin% Computers Limited vs. Mrs M 8: N Publications Limited and others e Union of india and others vs. Hindustan Deveiopment Corpn. And others“ Tata Ceiiuiar vs. Union of indie” Bannari Amman Sugar Ltd. vs. Commerciai Tax Ofhcer and others” o Ram Pravesh Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others“ 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contented that the action taken by the State is arbitrary, iiiegal, unfair & violative of Articie t4 of the Constitution of lndia and the steps taken by the State are oniy to allow undue advantage to the unsuccessful bidders. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposed the same and contended that opening of bids and making price offered by prospective purchasers public do not confer any right to tenderer, till his bid is accepted by the inter Department Committee (for AIR 1954 SC 592 “ AIR 1978 SC 851 “ (’1 979) 3 SCC 489 AIR 1980 SC 1997 ° NR 1985 SC 1147 o AIR 1986 SC 1527 7 AIR 1988 SC 157 (1990) 3 SCC 280 r1 993) 1 SCC 71 IQ (1 99o) 1 SCC 445 i1 (1 993) 1 SCC 467 12 (1 994) 6 SCC 651 1 a (20059 1 SCC 62o (2006) 8 $$C 381 @ 5 brevity “the IDC”), hew in the instant matter, after due cons§deration. The IDC arrived at a conclusion that in the adjcining States bidders have given much higher rates in comparison to the rates proposed in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, in order to fetch mare revenue in the interest of State and for the benefit of peopie of State they, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice rejected the offer given by the petitioner and others that too without making any discrimination and even further aliowed ail those purchasers to bid afresh. 7) We have gone through the record, annexed documents and considered meticulousiy the arguments advenced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 8) Tender notice having ail terms and conditions was floated on 6‘1 1-2006, at page 11 of it, there is a specific condition that State Without assigning any reason reserves its right to reject the tender. 9) By floating fresh tender the State has mentioned very specificaliy that tenderers can use their Earnest Money Deposit (for brevity “EMD”) deposited in first round of tender in second round and if they wantto take back their EMD, they shouid send their request. All bids submitted by prospective bidders have been rejected without any discrimination, 1G) it is not in dispute that in the adjoining States 'much higher bids have been offered. Only contention made by the petitioner is that due to prevaiiingtaxesconditions ofthe Statesproduction, quaiity of leaves etc., different rates have been offered in other States and if higher rates have been offered in other States, that does not mean that for State of Chhattisgarh also those higher rates will be offered. it is not in dispute that in this year in the first round exorbitant high raWye_been quoted‘in comparison to past years. i 6 11) This Court can undoubtedly interfere with the affairs of the State in case this Court, prima facie, finds that State withdrew the benefits in contravention of principles of equity and without considering the public equity or if there is reason to beiieve that the affairs of the State is wrapped with arbitrariness, iiiegaiity, unfairness or violative of principies of natural justice. 12) Here in the instant case, when there is possibility of fetching more revenue by the State by inviting fresh tenders and when the State without discriminating any bidders has, in accordance with terms of the tender notice rejected all the bids, how it can be accepted that the State violating principles of equity or infringing the rights of petitioner or others or in unfair manner, has rejected the tender dated 6-11—2006 and invited fresh. The decision making process adopted by the State is transparent. it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. State is a trusty of its citizens and has a bounden duty to protect the interest of its people and that the State has clone here in the instant case having consideredall the aspects by inviting a fresh tender. 13) After due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner‘s bid was not finalized or accepted by the State and petitioner has not been deprived of his any right having yet opportunity to take part in the fresh tender process, act of the State in no way, causes prejudice or takes away petitioner’s right. T?Wm§arv— ei(‘nneuwm WA¥__ I M) We do not find any substance in the instant writ petition, therefore, we dismiss the petition as well as M.(W.).P.No.?2 of 2007. Gowri %¥ l Sci/u Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra V.K. Shrivastava ‘ i l , Judge Judge