The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of a tender for leasing property. It held that the highest bidder acquires no right unless accepted. However, the court ordered the refund of the petitioner's earnest money within four weeks.
Refund of earnest money of Rs.1,25,000 within four weeks of filing an application.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 4059 of 2014 21.07.2016
Heard Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional G
overnment Advocate appearing for the State opposite party and Sri S. Senapati, learned counsel
for opposite parties no.3 & 4 and perused the records.
In response to a tender call notice for lease of Kalyan Mandap and Yatri Niwas of Kamakh
ya Nagar Notified Area Council for a period of three years, the petitioner as well as two othe
r persons had participated. The bid of the petitioner even though was highest, being nearly Rs
.5,000/- above the reserve price of Rs.5.00 lakhs, it was, however, not accepted by the opposi
te party authorities and on complaints having been received with regard to proper circulation
of notice, the tender process was cancelled by the Executive Officer, Kamakhya Nagar Notified
Area Council and it was directed that fresh tender notice be published in two leading newspape
rs and in the office as well as NIC website. At no stage the bid of the petitioner had been ac
cepted and as such the petitioner did not acquire any right. Merely by participating in a tend
er process and being the highest bidder would not mean that the contract would be awarded in f
avour of the petitioner, unless the bid of the petitioner is accepted.
Keeping in view the fact that the opposite parties have cancelled the tender on certain
complaints as well as the advice of the Assistant Collector and also keeping in view the highe
st bid of the petitioner was barely Rs.5,000/- above the reserve price of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the o
rder directing for fresh tender after wide publicity, so that the higher price could be get, c
annot be faulted with. As such we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order imp
ugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Opposite parties no.3 and 4 shall ensure that the earnest money of Rs.1,25,000/- deposit
ed by the petitioner shall be refunded to him within four weeks of filing of an application in
this regard by the petitioner before the Executive Officer, Kamakhya Nagar Notified Area Coun
cil.
....... ( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bidder who was not accepted as the successful bidder has a legal right to a lease agreement merely by being the highest bidder in a cancelled tender.
Whether the authorities are justified in cancelling the tender and directing a fresh tender process despite a higher bid.
Petitioner
Kamakhya Nagar Notified Area Council
Opposite parties no.3 & 4
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court