Elektron Lighting Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Shah Investments Fin. Dev. & Cons. P. Ltd.
|
Head Note
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 226
Tender - Awarding of Contract - Judicial Review - Tender had been issued on 01.08.2023 and the same was finalized only on 03.09.2014, i.e. after a period of more than one month - Pre-bid meetings were held and the last date for submission of tender was extended twice from 20.08.2023 to 25.08.2023 and thereafter to 28.08.2023 - Which by itself shows that the process was not carried out in haste - Exhaustive pre-bid meeting was held on 12.08.2014, which was stated to have been attended by eight prospective bidders and the minutes of the pre-bid meetings running into several pages changed many terms in favour of the respondent Corporation to ensure even stricter contract execution responsibilities and thus became part of the tender through issuance of two corrigenda - It in no way can it be termed as a hurried process, as held by the High Court - High Court has erred in law in holding that the work order was illegally given to the appellants in respect of replacement of street lights by LED fittings and refurbishment of street light infrastructure on BOT basis.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 226
Tender - Judicial Review - Awarding of contract - Advertising rights was separate - Municipal corporation which is a statutory body and instrumentality of the State should have acted fairly by making it open for all eligible to submit their offers - Respondent No.3 was not justified in giving the advertisement rights to the appellants without inviting tender for it - To that extent respondent No.3 has not acted fairly and contract to that extent was liable to be quashed without interfering with rest of the work order.
Topic(s)-Tender - Awarding of Contract - Judicial Review - - Contract partially quashed