contract& constitution
Somnath mukherjee
(Querist) 20 August 2010
This query is : Resolved
A state undertaking organisation quated a tender for atenure of five years.I became the highest bidder in respect of price amongst other bidder for entitre of the goods put to tender. The workorder in my favour was issued in terms of a judgement passed by the Hon'ble writ court, one of the unsuccessful bidder without challenging the tender terms and conditions before a writ court at the first instance preferred an appeal assailing the order of the Hon'ble writ court as above.
The hon'ble division bench while admitting the appeal after allowing aleave directed to issue work order for the entire quantity as held by the trial court but directed to curtail the the tenure from 5year to 1year for the present, subject to hearing the appeal. My question is:-
Whether the Hon'ble sitting in appellate jurisdiction disposing a matter Art.226 of the constituion can pass such order even if the same is ad-interim in nature if no ex-facie arbitraryness or discremination is found in respect of floating of such tender or respect of issuing the workorder in favour of the highest bidder?give reasons and citations in favour or against
s.subramanian
(Expert) 21 August 2010
The Division Bench is wrong . The bench can examine if there are any violations in fixing the tender. But it cannot alter the tenure of the tender on any ground since the courts have no jurisdiction to alter or amend the terms of the contract between the parties. It can merely interpret.
VENKATRAMAN SHRINIVAS
(Expert) 21 August 2010
I totally agree with Mr.Subramaniam. The court not having found any malafides in the deal, cannot impose restriction, as the terms of the contract is interse and there is no privity between the court and the defendant.
