TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 1333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., National Institute of Ocean Technology, School of Bio-Technology etc. The petitioner has filed Certificates Annexure-B series in this regard. 3. The respondent 2 issued a notification in terms of Annexure-C calling for International Competitive Bidding for Water Purification System (COT auto, Digestion reactor and Spectrophotometer and Kjeldahl Apparatus). The petitioner submitted his bid in terms of Annexure-D. The petitioner refers to various conditions in this regard. The petitioner's tender was submitted on 17-7-2001 for supply of 27 units of water Purification System at a total cost of Rs. 88,52,074/-. The bid form submitted by the petitioner is in terms of Annexure-E. The petitioner has filed a statement evidencing the comparative bid in terms of Annexure-F. The petitioner is the lowest bidder in respect of Schedule I items and he was not intimated of any order in his favour. It was in those circumstances, the petitioner makes representation seeking for an endorsement in this regard. In the absence of any action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner files this petition seeking for a direction with regard to the communication at Annexures-G and H. The petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been considered in an arbitrary manner. 7. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents contend that no cause of action either wholly or partly has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Court. Their further case is that in terms of the tender regulations, the petitioner has committed a material irregularity and therefore the endorsement is proper and legal. The contesting respondent also submits that he has already acted upon the terms of the contract. Records were also made available to this Court. 8. After hearing the Counsel, two issues emerge for my consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner can maintain a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (2) Whether Annexure-L requires my interference? 9. The respondents seriously have raised a contention with regard to the maintainability of the petition in this Court. They strongly rely on Article 226(2) of the Constitution and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpat Kumar Basu and Ors., , The petitioner strongly relies on the wordings in Article 226 in the light of similar wordings in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case in the writ petition". 13. Again in para 6, the Court ruled reading as under: "Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to many inconvenient results which the legislature sought to avoid by enacting the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 20 of the CPC". 15. Similarly, in A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited's case, supra, the Supreme Court ruled that "ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a Court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and no where else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cutta High Court. It was in those circumstances, the Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. That is not the case in the case on hand. A part of cause of action has occurred in this State and therefore, it cannot be said that this Court lacks absolute jurisdiction warranting rejection on the ground of want of jurisdiction by this Court. On facts, this Court holds that part of cause of action has occurred and that the petition is maintainable in this Court. 19. The petitioner in this case is challenging Annexure-L. The rejection of the petitioner's case on the ground that the prices quoted by the petitioner is found non-responsive in terms of the tender conditions. The elaborate argument has been advanced by either of the parties. It is relevant to notice a few clauses for appropriate understanding of the case on hand. Clause 5 provides for contents of bidding documents. The bidding documents include: (a) Instructions to Bidders; (b) General Conditions of Contract; (c) Special conditions of Contract; (d) Schedule of Requirements; (e) Technical Specifications; (i) Bid Form and Price Schedule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the bid is found non-responsive. I have already referred to the other clauses and the non-responsive clauses in Clause 24.4 referred to the bidding document. The bid document, as mentioned earlier, refers to Clause 5. It also refers to a Bid Form and Price Schedule. Bid Form and Price Schedule is also mentioned in Annexure-D itself. Though the petitioner has submitted Bid Form, he, for the reason best known to him, has enclosed Annexure, which is not a Bid Form and Price Schedule in terms of Clause 5 of the Bid Documents. Once this conclusion is irresistible, the rejection under Clause 24.4 by the respondents, on the basis of Annexure-I is factually not in accordance with the bid document. In the matter of contracts, one has to place reliance on the document for the purpose of a decision with regard to rejection. If a rejection is made on irrelevant material, the rejection is nothing but an arbitrary rejection. Therefore, on facts, I find that the rejection based on Annexure is outside the scope of Annexure-D. The Counsel for the respondents is unable to convince that Annexure-I forms part of bid documents. 22. It is a well-settled principle of law that the judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as 'arbitrary'. While judging whether the administrative action is "arbitrary" under Article 14 (i.e., otherwise than being discriminatory), this Court has confined itself to a Wednesbury review always". 25. In the very same judgment, in para 70, the Supreme Court ruled as under: "If it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, and such extreme or rare cases, can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment". 26. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court has to look into whether the administrator has done well in primary roll, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration. 27. In the case on hand, the relevant facts in the prescribed price Schedule in terms of the prescribed form have not been taken into consideration. On the other hand, Annexure-I, ....