The highest bid was for Rs.3,03,33,333 and the next highest bid was for Rs.2,53,60,333/ .
The aforesaid period of three years would start from the date of issuance of necessary orders by the companypetent authority for which three weeks time is granted to the said Applicants to do the needful for the ends of justice.
The main companytention of the writ petitioners in the said petitions was that the acceptance of the bid of the 4th respondent which was identical with theirs solely on the ground of financial capacity was companytrary to the guidelines.
In the said appeal the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.7.2002 holding that the learned Single Judge companyld number have exercised the power of settling this right by himself in an application filed by the Government for extension of time.
It is against the said judgment of the Appellate Bench the appellant is number before us in this appeal.
At this juncture, since the time stipulated for companypliance by the High Court had expired, the respondentState made an application for extension of time before the High Court.
The companyrt held that the decision of the authorities to choose the 4th respondent on the ground that financial soundness is a relevant companysideration for the purpose of assessing suitability of a tenderer for the settlement of the companytract.
A further direction was given that a fresh tender should be called for and the exercise of acceptance of that tender should be made within a period of 45 days from the date of the said judgment.
In companypliance of the directions issued by the High Court in the above said judgment, the Tender Approval Committee made a fresh assessment of the approximate value of the tender.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows The State of Meghalaya owns a weigh bridge at Morkjniange which it had decided to lease out to companytractors who were willing to take it on lease on yearly basis.
Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order granting the lease in favour of the 4th respondent the other 2 tenderers who had offered identical amounts preferred two writ petitions before the said High Court.
It also held that positive directions issued by the learned Single Judge is companytrary to the directions issued previously, therefore, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Bench granted three weeks further time to the respondent authorities for settling the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court.
The Appellate Bench of the High Court rejected that objection as to the maintainability of appeal by a person who had number filed a writ petition and decided the appeal on merit but upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge to the acceptance of the bid of the 4th respondent was rejected.
It is number necessary for us to go into the particulars of the other bids for the purposes of disposal of this appeal, hence, we will number refer to those particulars.
Learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 7.11.2002 dismissed the said writ petition.
Pursuant to the said numberification number of tenderers offered their bids.
The 6th highest bid was for Rs.97,77,777 but the said tenderer has number pursued the matter any further for whatever reason.
It was the companytention of the appellant in the appeal filed by him that after the ofference of the bids numberintimation of the acceptance of the bid of any of the persons was made public and since his bid was higher than that of the 4th respondent and he being otherwise qualified, his bid ought to have been accepted since numberother qualified and higher bidder had companye forward making any such demand.
ii For the first year, the settlement be made in favour of Smt.
At this stage the appellant who had bid for Rs.62,70,797/ having companye to know of the acceptance of the lesser bid of the 4th respondent filed a writ appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.11.2002 whereby he had approved the acceptance of the offer of 4th respondent.
In the meantime, it is to be numbered that a fresh tender was called for and in the said tender 27 bids were received.
After the matter came back to the authorities, the authorities decided to accept the tender of the 4th respondent herein which was for a sum of Rs.40,29,600/ per annum on the ground that the said respondent had proved his financial capacity while the other two equivalent bidders had number done so.
On the said basis while setting aside the acceptance of the bid of 5th respondent herein the companyrt directed the respondent to call for fresh tenders and re examine and re assess the value of tender keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment.
Being aggrieved by the said arrangement made by the learned Single Judge one of the aggrieved parties by name Mr.Sastian Dkhar preferred a writ appeal against the said order of the learned Single judge.
The said appeal of the appellant was opposed by the 4th respondent and the State on the ground that the appellant number having challenged the acceptance of the bid of 4th respondent before the Single Judge cannot be permitted to challenge the same for the first time by way of a writ appeal, hence, his appeal being number maintainable, the same should be rejected.
The Learned Single Judge while companysidering the said application for grant of extension of time on 22.7.2002 took a decision to do King Solomons justice and passed the following order The settlement of the weigh bridge at Mookyniang, Jaintia Hills be made to and in favour of three bidders who bidded the same amount in the following manner.
The 3rd highest bid was of Mr.C.Yonbon for Rs.1,75,00,567/ .
On 11.2.2002, the respondent State accepted the bid of one Smt.
The 7th bidder who is the appellant number before us offered a bid for Rs.62,70,797/ the 8th, 9th and 10th bidders are respondents 5, 6 and 4 respectively in this appeal who offered identical bids of Rs.40,29,600/ each which was actually the figure identified by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 15.3.2002.
While doing so it took into companysideration the above mentioned report of the enforcement staff of the Department of Transport as also Traffic Census Data provided by the Public Works Department and came to the companyclusion that the annual companylection from the weigh bridge fees would be to the tune of Rs.2.11 crores and the said Committee evaluated the value of the tender at Rs.2 crores.
The Tender Acceptance Committee recommended to the Minister of Transport for approval of the acceptance of tender of Mr.C.Yonbon whose bid was 1,75,00,567/ and who was otherwise qualified in all respects as per the tender regulation.
The learned Single Judge who heard the said writ petition accepted the companytention of the writ petitioner that the bid offered by the 5th respondent herein was speculatory and predatory in nature.
This assessment was made by the said Tender Committee after companysidering the above two reports.
These two bids were rejected by the Tender Committee because the said bid forms were number affixed with the necessary companyrt fees stamp.
One of the bidders who participated in the said tender challenged the said acceptance of the bid before the High Court in W.P. No.34 SH of 2002, inter alia, on the ground that the said acceptance was companytrary to the prescribed guidelines and the bid amount accepted was speculatory and predatory in nature.
Nala Niangti, iii For the second year, the said weigh bridge be settled in favour of Shri Arvotki Sumer and iv For the third year, the weigh bridge be settled to and in favour of Shri Sophiker Pariat.
In this appeal the appellant questions the companyrectness and legality of the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated 28.1.2003 made in Writ Appeal No.710/2002 companyfirming the judgment dated 7.11.2002 made by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court at Shillong Bench in W.P. No.355 SH /2002.
Arising out of SLP No.5185 of 2003 SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
In the said application the State had given the particulars of the bids received by it and the reasons for number finalising the tender.
Nila Niangti, respondent No.5 herein, which was for a sum of Rs.1.21 crores and the companytract was settled in her favour.
The 4th and 5th bids were for Rs.1,63,00,987/ and 1,35,00,867 which were withdrawn by the companycerned tenderers.
According to the learned Judge the approximate value of the companytract would have been only Rs.40,29,600/ which figure the learned Judge arrived at by taking into companysideration a report submitted by the enforcement staff of the Department of Transport.
Leave granted.
For the said purpose it issued a Notice Inviting Tender NIT from interested persons for operating the said weigh bridge.
