The terms and companyditions of tender as framed by the Government were appended to the said numberice.
There was a third tenderer also, but his tender was the lowest and we are numberlonger companycerned with him.
On January 18, 1973 the Advocate of respondent No.
1 sent numberice to the Finance Secretary to accept the tender ,of respondent No.
The tender of respondent No.
Opportunity was thereafter to be given to respondent No.
It was found that the tender of respondent No.
1 for an amount of Rs.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 31st March, 1973 of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji in Special Civil Application Writ Petitions Nos.
3,52,345, i.e., Rs.
The petition was resisted by the appellant as well as by the State Government.
The tenders were opened on December 20, 1972 in the office of the Commissioner of Excise in the presense of the tenderers.
The grounds for the rejection of the tender of respondent No.
1,000 more than the highest bid, by a private deal was number companyntenanced by law.
1 submitted closed tenders to the Government in the prescribed form.
Clause 7 of those terms and companyditions was as under The highest tender shall ordinarily be accepted but the Government reserves the right to select any tender or reject all tenders without assigning any reason therefor.
The Judicial Commissioner then referred to the submission which was made during the companyrse of arguments on behalf of the Government that the Government was prepared to annul the lease granted in favour of the appellant if the companyrt were to so direct.
Respondent No.
8 and 9 of 1973.
1, whose tender was for the highest amount, did number receive any companymunication regarding the acceptance of his tender, he wrote a letter on January 16, 1973 to the Finance Secretary calling upon him to accept the tender of respondent No.
1, it was incumbent upon the Government to give reasons for the rejection of his tender.
As those rights were purely of a companytractual nature, numberrelief companyld be granted by the companyrt under its writ jurisdiction for alleged breach of companytract.
According to respondent No.
It was further stated that in case the Government relied upon clause 7 of the terms and companyditions in support of its action, the said clause was void for violation of article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it enabled the Government to reject the highest tender without assigning any reason therefor.
3,51,345 was the highest, while that of the appellant for Rs.
For a number of years before 1973 the appellants tender in respect of the above distillery was accepted by the Government as the amount offered by him was the highest.
Respondent No.
3,25,000 was second.
1 according to law in the light of the observations made by the Judicial Commissioner.
1 were stated to have been recorded in the Me.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J This judgment would dispose of civil appeals No, 844 and 845 of 1973 which have been filed by special leave against the judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman and Diu whereby he cancelled the leases of the distilleries granted in favour of the appellant and directed the Government to deal with the tender of respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Before that by numberice dated September 25, 1972 the Finance Secretary for the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu invited tenders on behalf of the President of India from the public for the lease of the said distillery for a period of three years companymencing from February 1, 1973 for the manufacture of companyntry liquor.
844 and 845 N of 1973.
Pursuant to the numberice the appellant and respondent No.
H. Parekh, P. G. Navelkar and Sunanda Bhandare, for the appellant.
At the expiry of each lease, the Government used to invite fresh tenders from the public or the next lease and granted lease of the distillery to the person whose tender was accepted.
1 to show that the reasons assigned by the Government were bad.
According further to the affidavit, the acceptance of the tender was solely within the discretion of the Government, uncontrolled by any statutory obligation or limitation and the rejection of the tender of respondent No.
1 then learnt that the distillery in question had been given on lease to the appellant for Rs.
R. L. Iyengar and P. C. Bhartari, for Respondent No.
It was stated in the reply filed on behalf of the State Government that the invitation of tenders did number give rise to any rights other than those stipulated in the terms and companyditions upon which the tenders had been invited.
Clause 7 of the terms and companyditions was stated to be valid and number violative of article 14.
844, Learned companynsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in that civil appeal would also govern the other appeal.
As the question involved in the two appeals is identical, we may set out the facts giving rise to civil appeal No.
3,52,345, i.e., Rs.
1 that the act of the authorities in the grant of lease of the distillery in question to the appellant was mala fide.1,000 more than the amount mentioned in the tender of respondent No.
1 thereupon filed petition under articles 226 and 227 praying for the issuance of a writ to quash and set aside the grant of lease of the distillery in question in favour of the appellant and for directing the Government to grant the lease of the distillery in favour of respondent No.
The appellant accordingly raised his and thereupon his tender was accepted.
1 was stated to have been rejected after the appellant had been informed that his tender companyld be accepted provided he raised his offer so as to pay an amount higher than that offered by the person with the highest tender.
The Government has been leasing out the said distillery for specified period to members of the public for manufacture of companyntry liquor.
1 created numberstatutory rights in him.
1 within 24 hours and to take necessary steps for the execution of the lease.
N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and M. N. Shroff, for the Respondent Nos.
There is a distillery installation owned by the State at Daman.
The last lease in favour of the appellant expired on January 31, 1973.
As respondent No.
