JUDGMENT M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.
1. Heard Sri S. U. Khan for petitioner. Shri Yatindra Singh learned Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Shri S. N. Srivastava for respondent No. 3. Sri S. P. Gupta and Sri C. B. Yadav for respondent No. 5 and Shri R. N. Singh for respondent No. 6.
2. We have perused the wril petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit.
3. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to enter into contract with the petitioner pertaining to 375 gms. W. P. for canvas cloth quantity 3,18,300 meters or 3.48,400 meters in pursuance to the tender dated 30.4.98 in accordance with its opening and result of the opening made on 15.5.98 and not otherwise.
4. It is alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 acting as a functionary of respondent No. 3 invited open tenders on 30.4.98 for supply of the aforesaid quantity of the canvas cloth. The petitioner also submitted its tender which was said to be lowest amount Rs. 77.40 per meter whereas respondent No. 5's offer was Rs. 82.50 per meter and respondent No. 6 offered Rs. 83.00 per meter with certain discount. However, the contracts were granted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
5. In the counter-affidavit it is alleged in para 4 (c) that the petitioner was not an established supplier, and its performance was not satisfactory on earlier occasions. In para 4 (e) of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner in an earlier tender had offered the rate of Rs. 75.40. Hence the Tender Purchase Committee by fax message dated 3.6.98 (vide Annexure-CA-3 decided to make a counter offer at Rs. 75.50 per meter. All parties, including the petitioner sent replies to the counter offer vide Annexures-CA-4 to CA-7. The petitioner refused to lower its offer vide Annexure-CA-5. whereas the other parties lowered their earlier offers. In para 4 tg) of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the Tender Purchase Committee in its meeting on 25.6.98 noted that a sister concern of the Ordinance Equipment Factory had received offer at Rs. 69 per meter, and hence it was decided to further negotiate the price from all the participating firms. The respondent No. 1 sent fax letters to all parties including the petitioner on 14.7.98 (vide Annexure-CA-8) asking them to lower their offers. The replies of the parties are Annexures-CA-9 to CA-12. CA-12 is the tender of the petitioner by which it again quoted Its lowest rate at Rs. 77.40 per meter (i.e.. It again refused to lower its initial offer) whereas other parties lowered their offers. Ultimately on 4.8.98. the offers of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were accepted and contracts were executed in their favour. Thus, in our opinion, there is no illegality was committed by the respondents.
6. It is a settled basic principle in administrative law that an authority must act fairly vide Tata Celleur v. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 651. In our opinion, the authorities acted fairly in this case. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the authorities should have accepted the offer of the petitioner at Rs. 77.40 per meter because that was the lowest offer in the tender which had been opened earlier. He further submitted that it was not open to the authorities to enter into private negotiation. We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is not a case of private negotiation at all, rather the authorities have acted openly and in the knowledge of all the parties. It would have been another matter, if the authorities had entered into secret negotiation with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 after the initial tender, but there was no such secret negotiation in this case. In this case, the authority acted fairly and not arbitrarily. The petitioner was granted time again and again to lower its tender but it refused to do so. The authority acted openly and fairly by again inviting offers from all the parties including the petitioner to lower their tender rate and after opening the tenders, the authority did not accept the petitioner's offer as it did not lower its tender. Thus, the authority has acted in a fair manner and there is no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed.