Writ petition challenging a fresh tender notice and seeking a mandate to extend a expired exclusive right to operate a boat contract. Court held extension requires mutual consent and rejected the writ.
None. The petition was rejected and the impugned tender notice stands upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ash
wp-11298.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11298 OF 2013
Sudarshan Udyog Samuh. .. Petitioner Vs The Estate Officer and Others. .. Respondents
Shri Ramesh L. Majgaonkar for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 27TH OCTOBER 2014
P.C.
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. A tender notice was published by the Municipal Corporation of City of Kolhapur in the year 2001 for grant of a contract of exclusive right to do the business of boating at Rankala Lake in the City of Kolhapur. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, the contract was to remain in force for a period of ten years. The Condition No.22 which is a part of the tender conditions provides that after the expiry of contract period of ten years, it will be open for the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation with the consent of the Contractor to extend the period of contract of five years after finalizing the terms and conditions as regards the rates of royalty and income sharing. It is not in dispute that the period of contract has expired in May 2011. A fresh tender notice
ash 2
wp-11298.13
was published by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation being Tender Notice No.86 dated 20th October 2013 for granting a fresh contract for a period of five years in respect of the same lake. The validity of the said tender notice was extended on two occasions by Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.
ash
wp-11298.13
3
of the Tender provides for extending the period of contract which was initially of a period of ten years by a further period of five years. The extension of period can be made with the consent of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and the Contractor on finalisation of the revised rates of royalty and income share amount. Thus, the clause is very clear. The extension of contract can be made only by the consent of the parties. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim extension of the contract period as a matter of right. It is for the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to decide whether the proposal submitted by the Petitioner for extension of the contract period should be accepted or not. The Petitioner applied for extension on 11th February 2011 and 15th March 2011. However, the Estate Officer of the Municipal Corporation issued a letter dated 4th June 2011 to the Petitioner calling upon to vacate the site. He relied upon an order rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner in a Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner. This letters shows that the Corporation was not agreeable to extend the contract. Apart from the fact that the dispute is purely a contractual dispute, we find that no case is made out to seek extension of contract.
ash 4
wp-11298.13
filed by the Petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur is pending. A copy of the Application made by the Petitioner at Exhibit37 has been annexed to the Petition. The averments made in the Application show that the Petitioner intended to participate in the tender process initiated on the basis of the Tender Notice No.86 which is subject matter of challenge in this Petition. The prayer made in the Application was for issuing a mandatory injunction directing the Municipal Corporation to provide User ID and authorization. In fact, by the order dated 31st October 2013, the said Application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by directing the Municipal Corporation to provide User ID and authorization to the Petitioner in respect of the Tender Notice No.86. The prayer made in the said Application is at Exhibit37 and the order passed on the said Application shows that the Petitioner was desirous of participating in the tender process initiated on the basis of the Tender Notice No.86. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot challenge the action of the Municipal Corporation of publishing the Tender Notice No.86.
ash
5 wp-11298.13
on the issues involved in the suit and all the contentions of the parties
in that behalf are expressly kept open.
(A.S.GADKARI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a right to claim an extension of the contract period of five years under Condition No.22 of the tender.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the fresh tender notice issued by the Municipal Corporation.
Sudarshan Udyog Samuh
The Estate Officer
A.S. Oka
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
