AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finger lings and fishing right in S. Papparapatti lake, Attayampatti Taluk, Salem District and offered the highest amount of Rs. 4,55,000 and the auction was confirmed in his favour. In the tender notification dated July 11, 2006 issued by the third respondent, it is mentioned that the licence renewable every year on enhancement of 10 per cent amount for a further period of five years, which clause was incorporated taking into consideration the reality that the person, who is successful has to rear finger lings, which normally take one year, thereafter only, it gradually ready for harvest. While so, the third respondent issued notices dated December 12, 2006 and March 30, 2007 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,05,520 towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceedings of the third respondent dated December 12, 2006 to the extent it levies sales tax at 12 per cent and surcharge at 20 per cent. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent, without waiting for the disposal of W.P. No. 22601 of 2007 or renewing the licence has issued fresh tender notification dated June 11, 2007 and prayed for allowing of both the writ petitions. On the above contention, this court heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent, who submitted that the period of licence granted to the petitioner was one year, which expired on June 30, 2007; that though there is a clause for renewal up to a period of five years, discretion wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r stated by the learned Special Government Pleader for the third respondent that since no persons have come forward to participate in the auction pursuant to the notification dated June 11, 2007, which is impugned in W.P. No. 21056 of 2007, the third respondent has issued another tender notification dated June 21, 2007 fixing the auction date as July 26, 2007 in which 18 persons have participated and the highest amount offered by the fourth respondent, i.e., Rs. 5,40,000 was accepted by the third respondent, however, in view of the interim order granted by this court restraining the respondents, the same was not confirmed. Pointing out the above said facts, the learned Special Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein permit the authorities to grant maximum period of lease. Once lease is granted for one year after compliance of necessary formalities, which is one of the essential conditions of tender, it cannot be altered by the parties after entering into the arena. The remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be available to enforce a contract qua contract. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction normally cannot entertain a petition filed against a commercial contract except in cases where the authorities arbitrarily exercising their discretion for giving contracts at their sweet will and pleasure or there is violation of terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice or act unreasonably or contrary to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent could have rejected the tenders and invited fresh tenders on the basis of a less stringent standard or norm, but it could not depart from the standard or norm prescribed by it and arbitrarily accept the tender of the fourth respondent. When the first respondent entertained the tender of the fourth respondent even though they did not have 5 years' experience of running a II class restaurant or hotel, it denied equality of opportunity to other similarly situate in the matter of tendering for the contract. There might have been many other persons, in fact the appellant himself claimed to be one such person, who did not have 5 years' experience of running a IInd class restaurant but who were otherwise competent to run such a res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is clear from the above said decisions that the High Court shall not adopt any generous and casual approach in applying the right to livelihood under article 21 of the Constitution of India to a case involving contractual dispute. In this case, the petitioner, having agreed to the terms and conditions of the notification and consciously participated in the auction and his bid was also confirmed is estopped from seeking any relief contrary to the tender notification. The tender conditions cannot be altered after the parties entered into the arena. One other factor adverse to the petitioner is that the petitioner was directed by the third respondent to pay 75 per cent of the tender amount within the time stipulated, but he failed to ....