C.L. Gupta and Sons and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the contract granted in favour of Respondent No. 5 and for a mandamus directing the Respondents to execute the contract in favour of the Petitioner firm.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner Nos. is a partnership firm and Petitioner No. 2 is a partner of the said firm. The Petitioner manufactures and exports brasswares, etc.

The Respondent No. 4 Commandant, 11th Bn. P.A.C., Sitapur, issued an advertisement in the newspapers inviting tenders for sale of mutilated empty cartridge cases made of brass. The Petitioner firm submitted its tender. As per the terms and conditions the tenders were opened on 28.1.2000 . There were 26 firms who submitted their tenders. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that the market value of the scraps is approximately Rs. 1.5 crores.

On 28.1.2000, the tender forms of the 26 firms were opened and it is alleged in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the Petitioner''s bid was the highest. However, the contract was settled in favour of the Respondent No. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 20 of the petition that the Respondents have acted on extraneous considerations in settling the contract in favour of the Respondent No. 5 at a much lower rate. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the petition that the Petitioner''s offer was Rs. 75.11 per kg. whereas the offer of the Respondent No. 5 was 75.10 per kg.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and we have perused the same. In paragraph 25 of the same it is stated that the rates mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition are exclusive of expenses and taxes, and if expenses and taxes are added then the rate offered by the Respondent No. 5 will be the highest. Annexure-C.A. 3 is a comparative chart of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 5. It shows that exclusive of taxes and expenses the rate offered by the Petitioner is Rs. 75.11 per kg. but inclusive of taxes and expenses it will be Rs. 8,097.77 paise per quintal. On the other hand, the rate quoted by the Respondent No. 5 is 75.10 per kg. exclusive of taxes and expenses, but it is Rs. 8,501.53 paise after adding taxes and expenses. Hence, if taxes and expense are added the rate quoted by the Respondent No. 5 is higher than that of the Petitioner. The matter was considered by a Committee constituted by the Police Head Quarters in which four officers of the Police Head Quarters at Allahabad as well as the Commandant 11th Bn. P.A.C., Sitapur were members. The Committee also obtained the opinion of the Audit section and Finance Controller. Hence, it is alleged that there was full transparency in the matter. In paragraph 33 of the same it is stated that the Respondent No. 5 has already lifted materials on several dates and there is no mala fide.

A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the Respondent No. 5.

Annexure-C.A. 1 to the same contains the terms and conditions. According to the Clause 12 of the same, besides the tender rates the buyer would be charged to trade tax at 5%. Departmental charge at 5% and Handling charge at 2%. In paragraph 10 of the same it is stated that the tender rate of the Petitioner was Rs. 75.11 per kg. whereas that of the Respondent No. 5 was Rs. 75.10 per kg. Thus, the difference was very small. In paragraph 12 of the same it is stated that the Petitioner has been granted recognition certificate for the purchase of raw material at concessional rate vide Annexure-C.A. 3 to the affidavit. It is alleged that it is not necessary that the highest bidder should always be granted the contract.

In paragraphs 17 and 18 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that if the tender of the Petitioner had been accepted the State Government would have suffered a substantial loss. As the Respondent No. 5 will be paying Rs. 1,48,77,677.05 to the State whereas the Petitioner would have paid only Rs. 1,41,71,097.50 paisa. Thus, the Respondent No. 5 will be paying about Rs. 7 lakhs more to the State.

On the facts of the case, we find no merit in this petition. No doubt if the rate exclusive of taxes and expenses is seen the Petitioners rate is slightly higher than the rate of the Respondent No. 5, but if the taxes and expenses are included vide Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit then the rate of Respondent No. 5 is higher. Thus, it was the option of the authorities as to which of the two methods should be adopted, i.e., whether the rate exclusive of taxes and expenses should be seen, or the rate inclusive of taxes and expenses is to be seen. When the authorities had adopted the second alternative, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over their decision.

It is well-settled that in administrative matters, the Court should not sit in appeal over the decisions of the administrative authorities, but can only interfere where there is total arbitrariness or illegality vide Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, . We see nothing arbitrary or illegal in the method adopted by the Respondents. The selection was done by a Committee of senior officials of the department, and the opinion of the Audit Section and Finance Controller was also obtained. There is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.