P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Recycling Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Municipal Corpoation Of Delhi & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (12 Oct 2022)

Court cannot tweak the terms of the tendering process set by an expert

MANU/DE/3951/2022

Contract

The present Judgment will dispose of two Writ Petitions seeking the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("Respondent No. 1") to execute the agreement dated 10th June, 2022 to operate and maintain facilities to process minimum 1000 tonnes per day (“TPD”) of incinerable waste, fraction recovered from processing of 80,00,000 MT legacy waste to produce RDF and its subsequent transportation and disposal on daily basis.

Present Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Respondents decision to add additional criteria. Accountability and transparency being the basic tenets of any contractual obligation, this Court does not find the condition arbitrary, mala fides or of a nature which would favour any particular party.

Furthermore, the Respondents, in their LOA dated 10th June, 2022, added the additional condition of having GPS tracking device. In doing so, the Respondents made this a specific condition of the tendering process. However, vide letter, the Petitioners categorically stated that they were not in a position to install a GPS in the vehicle, and hence, could not fulfil the condition of the LOA.

It is evident that the Petitioners did not tender an unconditional acceptance to the LOA. Hence, a valid contract did not come into existence between the Petitioners, and Respondents, and no rights accrued in favour of the Petitioners. Due to the conditional acceptance tendered by the Petitioners, it appears that no contract was concluded between the parties, and no rights accrued in favour of the Petitioners. Hence, the Petitioners cannot seek an enforcement of the agreement dated 10th June, 2022.

It is trite law that, while exercising its tender jurisdiction, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal, and simply reviews the decision made by experts. Even then, the scope of judicial review is fairly narrow, and this Court cannot tweak the terms of the tendering process set by an expert. In the present case, the Petitioners were, and continue to be unable to fulfil an essential condition of the tender, and no valid contract was entered into by the Respondents with the Petitioners. In light of this, this Court does not find any occasion to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to execute the agreement dated 10th June, 2022 or cancel the fresh NIT issued by the Respondents. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present Petitions. Petitions dismissed.

Tags : AGREEMENT   EXECUTION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved