The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a joint venture tender selection. The court held that a user who failed to submit a tender lacks locus standi to question the tender authority's decision to select another bidder.
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.
Wviggw awgf €4§2/oyf
K
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-LATISGARH AT BILASPUR.
a03§ w.P.[C] No. ..... I201o
Petitioner(s)
x Mls. J.D.Foods Products (P)Ltd. Through its Director, Manish Saluja, Slo Late D.S. Saluja, Aged aboui 28 years, Rlo Lane L—4, Wnobha Nagar. Bilaspur, CG State.
Versus.
/ Respondent (s): 1) State of CG Through: Secretary. Women & Child Welfare Deptt, DKS Bhavan, L Raipur. E~ a] , 2. Managing Director, Seed & Agricultural Dev. Corpn, “Beej Bhavan" Teiibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur CG State. t 3. Mls. P.B.S. Foods Privte Limitd, A-122, Sanjay Gram Colony, Gurgaon, \ Haryana PIN 112001.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DIVISION BENCH
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN.JJ.
w.p. [c1 No. 2050/2010
Petitioner (s)
f Respondent (s}
Versus
M/ s. J.D. Foods Products (P)Ltd.
State of C.G. and others
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226OFTHECONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Pmsentz- Mr. K.R. Nair,Advocateforthe petitioner.Mr. Ajit Singh, P.L. fortheState/respondentN0. 1. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha,AdvocatefortherespondentNo.2. Mr. Prateek Shanna,AdvocatefortherespondentNo.3.
ORDER
(Passedon 04/07/2012)
The following order of the Court was gassedby
Abhay Manohar Sapre,J:~
‘ 2. Facts of the case areshort:—
7/ v
\
another State Government undm‘taking (MPSAIDC) formed by State of MP. prior to formation of new State of Chhattisgarh and on its fonnaiion, it came to be owned by the respondent No. 2. Since for myriad reasons, the plant]factorydid not do well end became sick and non— functional, the respondent No. 2 Iesolved to revive the said plant] factory by running it in joint venture with any pnvate entrepreneur on conditions. This is what was resolved.
4.2 THE CONCRPF
their tender. The respondent No. 2 out of seven, found the tender/bid of respondent No. 3 to be the most suitable one and accordingly accepted the same and then entered into a joint venture agreement with respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has since been running the show with respondent No. 2.
‘7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the writ petition which deserves dismissal.
that if th€ Wlit petitioner did not submit their tender or when they failed to submit their tender or if They were not interested in submitting their tender for any reason as the case may be (becausewe are not concerned with its reasoning and nor axe they material for the disposal of the writ petition), then they have no right to challenge either the tender or its any condition or the action taken by the respondent No. 2 in accepting any one’s tender (as in this case respondent No. 3). In such case, the status of the writ petitioner becomes that of the busy body or We may say a person, who has no interest in such matter because if they fail to participate in the tender process and were not party to it, then none of their rights whether fundamental or contractual or statutory or property are adversely an‘ected. This Court can not entertain a writ petition of this nature at the instance of such writ petitioner for examining the legality, pmpriety, reasonableness or correctness of the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3. The position would have been different if the writ petitioner had submitted their tender and participated in the tender process and in that process,if theirtenderhadeitherbeenrejectedorifthey had not been allowed to participate. 111 that situation, they had every right to file the writ petition and question the action of the respondent No. 2 on its merits. This Court would have then called upon the respondents to jusn'fytheiraction quawrit petitionerwithaViewtonnd out as to whether the action impugned in the writ petition is in conformity with the judicial norms laid down by the Courts or not, Such is not the case he,er
F“ \1 \
Haww
International Airport Authority of India and Othexs mported in (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628} contended that even though The wn't petitioner did not file their tender yet, on the strength of the observation made in Rammna, they had a locus to challenge the tender including acceptance of respondent No. 3 tender by tiling wn't petition. We do not agree. The observation relied upon by the learned counsel in Rammanna case were made in different context and in the light of facts involved in that case. They can not be applied to the facts of the case because they are factually different. We can not allow the writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition even without becoming the party in the tender process or without first submitting the tender and come at par with all other tenderers. It is not in dispute that those 7 tenderers who had participated in the tender process and whose tenders were rejected did not question the decision of respondent No. 2 in accepting the tender of respondent No. 3 and rejecting the tenders of other 7 tenderers.
No cost.
) K
Sd/.
Abhay Manohar Sapre [It
Judge
‘
Ski/-
G. Minhajuddin
Judge
’l‘iwari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bidder who did not submit a tender has locus standi to challenge the tender process and the selection of another bidder.
Whether the principle in Ramana Dayaram Shetty's case applies when the petitioner was not part of the tender process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of IndiaDistinguished¶41
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. J.D. Foods Products (P) Ltd.
State of C.G.
Managing Director, Seed & Agricultural Dev. Corpn.
M/s. P.B.S. Foods Private Limited
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
