On March 21, 2000 M s. Millenium Infrastructure P Ltd. filed a writ petition No.
3, M s. Jai Krishna Infrastructure P Ltd., respondent No.
2000 3 SCR 1159 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted in all the three sets of petitions.
4, M s. Oriental Veneers P Ltd. respondent No.
On March 24, 2000 the tenders were opened and an objection was raised that M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. did number fulfil the companyditions either under Clause 6 a or Clause 6 b in spite of which, it is stated, the Commissioner insisted on opening the same.
6717 18 of 2000, M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd., appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of 6298 of 2000 and respondent No.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by M s. Konark Infra structure P Ltd. and held that the deletion of clause 6 a of the Tender Booklet took place after offers were received on March 23, 2000 and the offers had been received on the basis of clause 6 a and Clause 6 b which would define the companyditions of eligibility.
The Commissioner allowed M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. to furnish a certificate as to Clause 6 b by a Chartered Accountant as to its networth which discloses Rs.
Therefore, the High Court took the view that once a decision was taken to delete the application of Clause 6 a and offers which were received on March 23, 2000 being made on the basis of existence of Clause 6 a , fairness and equal treatment required that the process should be carried out afresh to determine whether better or higher offers would be received upon the deletion of the same and that evidently having number been done, a restricted application of the modified tender companyditions to only the existing bidders, the Municipal Corporation had been deprived of the opportunity which it companyld have had of obtaining higher or better bids.
However, it was numbericed that by reason of the deletion of Clause 6 a of the Tender Booklet a wider net was available and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation should have the benefit of as wide a field as should be reasonably possible.
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation issued a Notice inviting tender for appointment of agents for companylection of Octroi subject to the terms and companyditions set forth therein fixing 4 p.m. on March 23, 2000 to be the tune of submission of the tender and fixing 5 p.m. on the same day for opening of the tenders.
On that basis, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
The Commissioner proceeded to finalise the tenders on the basis that Clause 6 a had stood waived or deleted in view of the order of the Government issued under Section 451 of the Municipal Corporation Act and awarded the companytract in favour of M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. The appellant M s. Konark Infrastructure P Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the award of companytract to M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. on various grounds.
This order made by the High Court is called in question by the appellants.
However, on March 23, 2000 M s. Millenium Infrastructure P Ltd. withdrew the aforesaid writ petition.
The Commis sioner informed the parties that Clause 6 a had been waived of by reason of the order made by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 451 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
1456 of 2000 in the High Court at Mumbai challenging the imposition of two companyditions companytained in Clauses 6 a and 6 b of the Tender Booklet as unconstitutional and seeking deletion of these two companyditions as pre requisite for its participation in the tender.
4.5 crores approximately.
5, M s. Sample Infrastructure, respondent No.
6 in the Appeal filed by M s. Konark Infrastructure P Ltd. The Commissioner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, however, intimated the tenderers that as the High Court was seized of a writ petition he did number propose to open the tenders until further orders from the High Court on March 24, 2000.
Five persons tendered their documents and papers and they are M s. Konark Infrastructure P Ltd., appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Further, it was made clear that the aforesaid process should be companypleted within a period of four weeks and some interim arrangement for companylection of octroi shall be made subject to certain companyditions.
Therefore, the High Court held that the Municipal Corporation had acted arbitrarily in companysidering the bid of M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. which did number fulfil the eligibility companyditions on the last date which was prescribed tor the submission of the tenders.
However, he sought for information of the numbers of the tenders filed and the tenderers qualifying and number qualifying companyditions Clauses 6 a and 6 b of the Tender Booklet.
In that view of the matter, it did number direct the Municipal Corporation to accept the higher bid of M s. Konark Infrastructure P Ltd. and thereby while quashing the award of companytract in favour of M s. Monarch Infrastructure P Ltd. made it clear that the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to invite a fresh tender for the purpose of awarding the companytract for companylection of octroi on terms and companyditions which would be prescribed by the Municipal Corporation.
On March 21, 2000, a Division Bench of the High Court and having heard the parties adjourned the matter till March 24, 2000 at 11 a.m. by making it clear that there shall be numberinterim relief except that the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpo ration shall number issue work order till further orders.
