LexRAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION versus STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 391 RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION v. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2651-2656 of 2020) JUNE 24, 2020 [HEMANT GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] 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 short- term 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 [2020] 5 S.C.R. 391 391 A B C D E F G H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. 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. Case Law Reference (2005) 12 SCC 545 relied on Para 8 [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421 relied on Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2651- 2656 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2020 and 10.06.2020 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 362 of 2020, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 364 of 2020 and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 372 of 2020. With Civil Appeal Nos.2657-2662 and 2663-2664 of 2020 Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Akhil Sibal, Gaurab Banerjee, R.K.Mathur, Sr.Advs., Harsh Sahu, Amish Tandon, Ayush Beotra, Akshay Joshi, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Vikas Mishra, Suhail Sehgal, Vikas Singh Jangra, K.S. Bhati, Aditya Vikram Singh, Ajay Chaudhary, Sameer Abhyankar, Dhaval Mehrotra, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. Leave granted. 1. The present appeals are directed against the interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on 29th May, 2020 and 10th June, 2020 whereby in an intra-court appeal, the High Court passed an order of status quo with a further direction that other formalities may proceed but the contract shall not be signed without the leave of the Court. A B C D E F G H 393 2. The Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. is in appeal aggrieved against the said interim order. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tender was given for warehouses at 71 locations on 12th March, 2020 for operation and management of the warehouses under Public Private Participation (PPP) Model. Certain queries were raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court (respondents herein) in respect of clause 5(5)(i) of the notice inviting bid. Such clause reads as under: “The bidder (either directly or through its 100% owned subsidiary) should have experience in preservation, maintenance and storage of not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.