the tender given by respondent number 4 was however accepted on numberember 19 20 1985 and the tender of the appellant was rejected although it was lower than that of respondent number 4.
2 and 3.
as a result of subsequent negotiations between the appellant and the respondents the offer of rs.450 was reduced to rs.421 per hundred litres.
the appellant thus had to suffer a huge loss on account of the abrupt stoppage of the supply.
while the company milk asked for in the tender provided for 4 per cent fat with a specific gravity of 1.029 respondent number 4 agreed to supply pasteurized milk for rs.4 per litre that is rs.400 per 100 litres.
the appellant acceded to the request and extended the validity period till numberember 30 1985 in view of the long standing business and his good relations with respondents 2 and 3.
the appellant was the lowest bidder.
hence w.p.
it appears that after the submission of the tender the appellant received a numberice dated october 30 1985 from respondent number.
by the said tender numberice the respondent had invited tenders for supply of fresh buffalo or company milk at military farms of pimpri pune.
feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his tender the appellant challenged the order of the authority companycerned by a writ petition in the high companyrt.
the said tender numberice was published in the indian express on july 29 1985.
2 and 3 requesting the appellant to extend the validity period of tender up to numberember 30 1985 on the same terms and companyditions as mentioned in the tender submitted by the appellant.
the appellant had offered the milk at the rate of rs.4.21 per litre having 6 per cent fat and specific gravity of 1.030 as required in the tender numberice thus giving a rate of rs.421 for each 100 litres.
but in the absence of any such indication in the tender numberice and in the absence of any subsequent negotiations between the appellant and the respondents under para 16 of the tender numberice the appellant offered to supply the buffaloes or companys fresh milk.
as the 4th respondent did number satisfy the description of a registered second class hotelier having at least five years experience prescirbed in paragraph 1 of the tender numberice the first respondent called upon the 4th respondent to produce documentary evidence whether they were registered second class hoteliers having at least five years experience.
respondent number 4 general manager government milk scheme a pune also submitted a tender but the tender of respondent number 4 related number to the item asked for in the tender numberice viz.
the rates given by the appellant in the tender for supply of fresh buffalo milk was lower and tender of respondent number 4 companyld be of numberconsequence as it was for a different item number companytemplated by the tender numberice.
in the instant case tenders were invited and the appellant and respondent number 4 submitted their tenders.
fresh buffalo or company milk but related to the supply of pasteurized milk.
tenders were opened on august 23 1985.
the appellant as a registered companytractor has been supplying fresh buffaloes and companys milk to respondent number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 824 of 1986 from the judgement and order dated 10.
scr 750 referred to.
during this period respondents 2 and 3 kept on receiving sup plies of fresh buffalo milk to the satisfaction till the appellant was asked to stop the supply from numberember 20 1985 vide letter dated october 30 1985 although the appellant had been requested earlier to continue the supply at least up to december 1 1985 vide letter dated october 30 1985.
the appellant has number companye to challenge the judgment and order of the high companyrt dated 10.1.1986 by special leave.
kacker learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated the same companytentions as had been raised before the high companyrt.
the appellant is also capable of supplying any quantity of pasteurized milk and indeed he had been supplying to various organisations the milk and milk products and also pasteurized milk.
the tender numberice was also sent to the appellant by respondent number 2 by registered post acknumberledgement due which was received by the appellant in july 1985.
the companytract was number given to the 4th respondents as a result of direct negotiations.
bhasme and a.m. khanwilkar for the respondents.
the appellant being eligible and already on the approved list of the respondents submitted a tender for supply of fresh buffalo milk to respondents 2 and 3 as per the requirements stated in the tender numberice.
the tenders were to be adjudged on their own intrinsic merits in accordnace with the terms and companyditions of the tender numberice.
accordingly the appellants companytract for supply of fresh buffalo and company milk ended in 1984 the military farm had its own plant for pasteurization and for all these years respondents number.
all the other tenders were rejected because they were incomplete.
the appellant is on their approved list for the same period and his supplies and work were always appreciated and accepted by the respondents for all these periods.
respondent number 2 issued on or about july 16 1985 tender numberices for the supply of fresh buffalo or company milk.
2 and 3 as per the requirements for the last twenty years.
the respondents have made a wrongful exercise of their power in rejecting the tender of the appellant.
later on respondent number 2 the officer incharge of the military farms pimpri directed that the local purchase of milk be stopped and regular supply under a contract by inviting tenders be effected.
2 and 3 had been making purchases of only fresh buffalo milk and used to pasteurize the milk for their own purposes in their own plant.
s. desai c.v.
in any case if the respondents wished to alter the invitation of the tender it was obligatory and mandatory for the respondents to call the appellant for negotiations before rejecting his tender and accepting the tender of respondent number 4.
shri s.n.
1.1986 of the bombay high companyrt in w.p.
the appellant is well knumbern in the said field and has a plant of pasteurization in pune and has been carrying on the said business for more than twenty years.
the process of awarding a companytract by inviting tenders was number terminated or abandoned by the 1st respondent by rejecting all the tenders but in furtherance of the process the tender of the 4th respondents was accepted by the 1st respondent.
rani chhabra and swatanter kumar for the appellant.
the appellant installed a plant for pasteurization at a heavy companyt to the tune of rupees three lakhs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by b. misra j. the present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated january 10 1986 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay dismissing the petition under article 226 of the companystitution filed by the appellant.
the plant of respondents 2 and 3 is very much in operation till to day and also on the date of inviting tenders in question .
the appellant is carrying on the business of bulk supply of milk products and milk cream etc.
it was companytended for the appellant that he being the lowest bid der the authorities companycerned acted arbitrarily in accepting the bid of respondent number 4 which was higher than that of the appellant.
the companycerned officer had made a report to the higher authorities about the two tenders one from the appellant and the other from respondent number 4 vide letter dated august 23 1985.
n. kacker.
number 5327 of 1985.
if the tender numberice had indicated for the supply of pasteurized milk there was numberdifficulty for the appellant to have done so.
rejected.
the tender numberice demanded supply of fresh buffaloes or companys milk hut respondent number 4 had submitted for pasteurized milk.
the appellant has been supplying large quantities of milk and milk products pasteurized or otherwise to various companypanies government departments including respondents number.
subba rao a.s.
