High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 08 UK CK 0147

Babaji Advertising Agency vs Appar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 August 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Rakesh Thapliyal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 216 Of 2023

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 357 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the minutes of the meeting dated 22.07.2023, whereby the tender committee has taken a decision not to proceed with the tender in pursuance of the tender notice dated 05.07.2023.

2) The petitioner was one of the bidders in respect of the tender in question floated by respondent No. 1 for recovery of license fee on advertising boards / hoardings / unipoles and wall paintings. On 20.07.2023, the technical bids of the bidders were opened. Thereafter, even before opening of the financial bid, it was decided to adopt the e-tendering procurement method. Rule 35 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules (Procurement by way of electronic means – e-procurement) was taken into account, which provides that all works and materials exceeding rupees 2.5 lacs should be procured through e-tendering process. Consequently, the respondents decided not be proceed with the tender in question, and did not open the financial bids.

3) The submission of Mr. Kandpal is that the respondents were aware of the Rule even before initiating the tender in process, yet they proceed with inviting the tender in question, through physical mode. He submits that the respondent should, therefore, have proceeded with the tendering process, and proceeded to open the financial bids.

4) We do not find any merit in this submission. Merely because an authority invites tenders, it does not mean that the bidders get vested with the right to insist that the tendering process should be completed. It is open to the authority inviting the tender to withdraw from the same at any stage. However, the reason for such withdrawal cannot be arbitrary. In the present case, the impugned minutes record the reason for withdrawing the tender which, in our view, is a good and sufficient reason.

5) We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondents are, however, directed to release the security deposit and the sealed financial bid submitted by the bidders in response to the tender in question.

6) Interim relief application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.