IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHI-LATISGAR AT BILASPUR w.P.No.”7zOF 2002 PETIONER Sachin Sharma S/o Bhuva Lal Sharma, aged about 25 . Years, Occupation—Contractor Permanent R/o Nahar Colony Janjgir, presently residing at ‘Dayalband, Bilaspur‘( CG.) I x RESI‘DNDENTS VVERSUS Jigtate of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary Department of R r Commercral Tax (Exc1se) Mantralaya D la S Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarth) 2. Commissioner ~ Excise, Chhattisgarh, Raipur {CG} . Collect0r(Excise) I Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . Assrstant Commisswner Excrse iyhhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARII MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS DIRECTION, DR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS W“ H TI n W This petitic‘n has been f Article‘ 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that though the petitioner was the highest tenderer but his tender has not been accepted illegally and he has'been subjected to selective discrimination and his offer has not been accepted and the respond ents have proceeded to‘have new auction by inviting fresh tenders in respect of Chuchhiyapara country liquor proper information has not bee proper publication of the notice was not made. / ' [View shop. It is alleged that even n given to the petitioner and iled by, the petitioner under . XI—Hc-22‘ WW, We, W33 LL$.m41W/og .\\\V WW m 7 \ mm Wm mm?! ammstia mmawm as aim aim 21/6/2002 Shri Manindra’ Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri A?“ Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Addl. Advocate General, with Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Dy’ Advocate General, for the State. f? Shri Dhirendra Mishra? Advocate appears for' Intervener Haris and has filed: 1/.A.No. 3935/ 2002. Shri Thakur, Dy. Commissioner; Excise, is also present with the record. Heard. respondents, who have flled Notices were given to the their reply and‘ relevant record was produced The contention of the respondents Ls that they have reauctioned the aforesaid country liquor shop, as the price offered was not up ,to the expectation. Notice dated 18.6.200Q produced by the State counsel goes to show that the Additional Cellector (Excise) in‘ on 19.6.2002 and the tender: same day at 3.30 p.m.,» It W / notice. War m ’ W?! wmmezow m e W W 261 W m%%mmgqi%raaéié¥tr Emeegmiaéimmw WW19322002 admewo mmmmeimemw wrIWWm—cmwhhm WW w W W 3r W’H§WWWE¢WH% mwwmwm 2062002 1% 31.32003 mwme‘ wwwtmamw: §e330 stimdaermgvmaie which is in the record Jited tenders up to 3.00 pm. ; were to be opened’on the ill be apt to reproduce this QWW aw r x ‘ [wedge 3 , XI~HC-22‘ . XI-HC-22‘ n.4,. WW%§l Vide endorsement No.3 ‘ the Commissioner Public Rela in daily newspapers. It is stau Relations could not get it pul 18.6.2002. Learned State coun to the practice auction can be 24/ hours. Even if auction can in that event actual 24 hours oi publication. The publication the abode object so that all tl interested should know the pu the' endorsement No.3 show: thought necessary and it is for to the Commissioner Public R elations. If it was so urgent the authority should have cl antacted the Commissioner [11% ataa {swag—wont) this notice was also sent to tions for getting it published ad that Commissioner Public )lished since it was sent on sel submitted that according held even with the notice of be held within 24 hours, but must be given from thetime ‘ of the notice is required with lose Who are conCemed and blicatjon. In the instant case ; that the publication was this reason that it was sent XI-HC-22 Public Relations or the com} or‘otherwise and impressed is urgently required and p1 opinion of this Court Whate authorities proposed must transparent, fair and open t1 1 SCC 53 (Dutta Associates } Pvt. Ltd 85 others) has he process should be transpare the process should be tram / should not only remain on paper as has been done in the instant case. It ought to h: Court in a decision reporte‘ Cellular Vs. Union of India) ’1 judicial review would apply powers by Government i However, there are inherent arbitrariness or favoritism} limitations in exercise of t hat power of judicial review getent l authority on phone, fax upon him that the publication ‘ompt steps be taken. In the ver procedure is adopted, the follow that it should be ) all. The Apex Court in (1997) ’Vt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Merchantiles 1d that the decision making nt, fair and open. AcCordingly iparent, fair and open and it we duly published. The, Apex i in AIR. 1996 SC 11 (Tata ias held that “The principles of to the exercise of contractual rodies in order to prevent v [aisét‘at =3 Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financ ial interest of the State. The right to rejuse the, lowest or available to the Government. B Art, 14 of the Constitution ha: accepting or refusing a tender. infringement ofArt. 1 4 if the Go person or the best quotation. ifhe right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary)Dower. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any colh / " Since in the present case , that pcwer will be struck down. proper publication has not been made and even proper opportunity to the persons co the notice dated 18.6.2002 deeerves to be quashed. The matter relates to Excise and State is also concerned in getting more rev: of the tender notice is require d. It is pointed out that for any other tender is always a, the principles laid down in )e to be kept in view while There can be no question/of vernment tries to get the best zteral purpose the exercise of ncerned has not been given is not sustainable and it :nue, therefore due publicity ._\ [View a - XI—HCv22 mm Win-EE? publication ”the matter haS be routed through to CommiSsioner, Public Relations that are the arrangement made by the State in the cases like the one. It is for the State to see that the publication should be made in the newspapers. The State shall see that there may be proper publication. The State has its ways and means and the t authorities mayo make alternate arrangements for publication in suitable cases. Due publicity will certainly make it competitive and it is equally safeguards the interest of getting more Revenue. / Having considered the facts and Circumstances, and the material available on reclrd, in the opinion of this Court it would be just and pro er to issue a direction that fresh tender be invited by the coacerned Excise Authority in accordance with law by p per publication, giving full opportunity to those who wan s to participate, in order to develop healthy competition; f any difficulty is found in r getting the tender notice p lished, it is open to the \ , Maw V