G. J. FERNANDEZ versus STATE OF MYSORE & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 14-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

636 
G. J. FERNANDEZ 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE & ORS. 
April 14, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
8 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 162-Article 162, If con-
fers power on State Government to make rules-Ad1ninirtrative instruc-
tions-Effect of violalion. 
Sealed tenders were submitted to the Chief En.11ineer of the P.W.D. 
of the respondent.State for a certain construction. The tender submitted 
by the appellant was the !Qwest unconditional tender, wh~reas that of the 
i.1ird respondent, though lower in amount was a conditional tender. None 
C 
of the tenders was accepted by the Chief Engineer. Instead, he wrote 
to the third respondent asking him if be would withdraw bis conditions, 
unri ·wrote to the other tenderers asking them if they would undennke the 
work at the lowest amount, that is the amount tendered by the third res-
pondent. The replies were to he submitted within a week of the receipt 
of the letters bv the tenderers but the third respondent submitted his reply.: 
withdrawing bis conditions, befond that time. The appellant wrote that 
D 
his tender being unconditiona should have been accepted. 
The Chief 
Engineer again wrote to the appellant asking him to send a categorical 
reply and the appellant replied that he was not prepared to reduce the 
amount. The third respondent wrote thereafter asking for a higher pay-
ment, and so, the Major Irrigation Projects Control 
Board, which was 
the final accepting authority, directed that fresh negotiations should be 
opened with all the tenderers. The Chief Engineer therefore again called 
for renders and wrote to all the tenderers if they were prepared to reduce 
E 
the amounts. The appellant did not send any revised quotations but pro-
tested against the action taken 
by the Chief Engineer. As the offers 
made by the others in their second tenders were not advantageous to the 
Government, the Chief Engineer called a meeting of all the tenderel" 
and asked them if they were prepared to make further reductions. The 
appellant and some other tenderers stated that they had no further re-
duction to make, two of the tenderers said that they would write later, 
while the third ·respondent wrote immediately reducing the amount of 
F 
his tender. The Chief Engineer made a report to the Technical Sub-
committee which made its recommendations to the 
Board 
and 
the 
Board accepted the third respondent's firal tender. 
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the grant of the con-
tract to the third respondent on the ground• that : ( 1) the rules in the 
Mysore Public Works Department Code were 
not followed; and (2) 
there was a violation of Art. 14 because, (a) the Chief Engineer accept-
G 
ed the first offer of the third re<nondent hcyond the prescribed period 
of one week, and (b) the Chief Engineer favoured the third respondent 
by entering into secret negotiations with him. 
The High Court dismissed the petition. 
In appeal to this Coun, 
HELD : (i) There is no statute nor any Article of the Constitution 
which confers any authority on the State Government to issue rules in 
H 
matters with which the Code was concerned. Article 162 of the Consti-
tution only provides that the State Government can take executive action 
jn all maUers in which the legislature of the 
State can pass Jaws. 
But 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
FERNANDEZ v. MYSORE (Wanchoo, C.J.) 
637 
the Article by itself does not confer any rule-making power on the State 
Government. Therefore, the instructions in the Code were mere admi-
nistrative instructions and even if there was a breach thereof the appellant 
had no right to apply to the Court for quashing orders in breach of such 
instructions. [6438-E] 
(2) There was no discrimination by the Chief Engineer. 
(a) The period of seven days fixed by the Chief Engineer for send-
in~ the reply was not a period of limitation, no other tender's reply was 
reiected on that ground, and even the appellant was given extended time 
to reply, showing that the period was not meant to be rigid. [644A-C] 
(b) There was no evidence of any secret negotiations 
between the 
Chief Engineer and the third respondent. [ 6440) · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 218 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 18, 
1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2426 of 
1966. 
S. K. Venkatqranga Iyengar, Shyama/a Pappu 
and Vineet 
Kumar, for the appellant. 
H. R. Gok/1ale, B. R. L. Iyengar, R. H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.