Tender – A tender was given for warehouses at 71 locations on 12.03.2020 for operation and management of warehouses under Public Private Participation (PPP) Model – Writ petitions were filed challenging the tender conditions and the same were dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Thereafter, the technical bids were opened and the appellants in the connected civil appeals were found to be successful and the letter of intent was issued – In an intra- Court appeal, the High Court passed an order of status quo with a further direction that the other formalities may proceed but the contract shall not be signed without leave of the Court – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant- Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation contended that writ petitioners are successful shortterm tenderers who have offered 42% revenue to the State as against the 71% of the revenue offered by the successful bidders after competitive bidding – Therefore, the appellant will suffer huge financial loss if after the completion of the tender process, the tenderers are not permitted to manage and operate the warehouses – Held: Since the matters are pending for final determination before the High Court, the Supreme Court will refrain from making any comment upon the merits of the arguments raised by the parties – The fact remains that once the bidding process is complete, the appellant is entitled to take work from successful bidders rather than taking the work from the short-term tenderers who were granted contract in exigency of the situation – In matters of contract , the grant of interim order to restrain the successful bidders from executing the contract is not in public interest, more so, when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouses of the State Government undertaking – Therefore, the grant of interim order which impinges upon the grant of contract by the appellant is not in public interest that too without recording any reasons when the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Consequently, the orders granting status quo set aside. Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. (2005) 12 SCC 545; Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.