Writ Petition No.4039 of 2010

29th October, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. M. G. BHANGDE,Shri. V. V. BHANGDE
Respondent Counsel: Smt. B.H. DANGRE,Shri. S. P. DHARMADHIKARI,Shri. M. P. KHAJANCHI

Cases Cited:
Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005)2 SCC 334 [Para 6,13]
Huth Vs. Clarke, (1890)25 QBD 391 : 63 LT 348 [Para 13]
Rood Chand's case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 539 : AIR 1963 SC 1503 [Para 13]
Battelley Vs. Finsbury Borough Council, 1958 LGR 165 [Para 13]
State of Orissa Vs. Commr. of Land Records Settlement, (1998)7 SCC 162 [Para 13]
OCL India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (2003)2 SCC 101 [Para 13]
Avinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1979)1 SCC 137 [Para 15]
Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence Vs. S. Daniel, 1990(Supp) SCC 374 [Para 15,16]

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.:- Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16/8/2010 passed by the Minster, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya - Mumbai thereby setting aside the award of the contract to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 - Additional Collector, Nagpur directing that the price bids of respondent nos.5 and 6 be opened consequent to the letter dated 17/8/2010 issued by the respondent no.3 directing that the price bid envelopes of the respondent nos.5 and 6 will be opened on 21/8/2010 at 12 O'clock sharp.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows - The respondent no.3 - Additional Collector, Nagpur floated a tender for transportation of sugar from sugar factories to the Government godowns or to persons known as nominees. The contract was to be for a period of three years from 1/6/2010 to 31/5/2013. On 30th of June, 2010, the petitioner alone was adjudged to have qualified for the technical bid. The other three tenderers were found to have been disqualified. The Additional Collector, therefore, exercised the powers conferred on him by the Government Resolution dated 2nd of June, 2010 and issued a notification dated 1st of July, 2010 stating that in order to extend the time by a period of 15 days a re-tender is ordered i.e. tenders are invited again. This was done in purported exercise of a clause 2.2.E in the Government Resolution dated 2/6/2010 which reads as follows -

"E) After opening the technical envelope of bid, if less than 3 valid bids are received, then instead of opening envelope of transport rate, due to poor response, (instead of re-tendering) first 15 days extension of time be given to tenders. If 3 valid bids are not received even after that, then again for second time, 15 days extension of time be given and even thereafter if less than 3 valid bids are received, the officer opening the bids i.e. Additional Collector should open the Transport rate envelope before his superior officer (Collector) and obtain signature of the senior officer on the same."

In pursuance thereof, five more tenders were received, out of these two were disqualified as not complied with the technical formalities. Thus there were four tenders in fray i.e. the petitioner's and the three tenders which were received latter. On evaluation of these four tenders, the contract was awarded to the petitioner.

4. The unsuccessful tenderers i.e. respondent nos.5 and 6 made a representation to the respondent no.2 - Minster and the minster thereupon passed an order, which does not refer to any specific power said to have been vested in him by any law or Government Resolution to hear an appeal, revision or a representation and held that the Additional Collector should not have invalidated the technical bid of three persons as ineligible and should not have issued re-tender but should have extended the time as required by the Government Resolution. In the result, the Minister invalidated the entire tender process and the award of tender to the petitioner which was undisputedly made after an evaluation of all the bids. The Minister by the said order has observed that it appears that the respondents nos.5 and 6 had attached all the documents necessary for the technical envelope and therefore, should not have been adjudged to be ineligible tenderers. In pursuance of the order of the Minister, the Additional Collector in compliance with the order of the Minister opened the price bid of the respondent nos.5 and 6 and upon a comparison of the bids found respondent no.5's bid to be legible and granted the contract to the respondent no.5. The Additional Collector, Nagpur simultaneously cancelled the contract awarded to the petitioner and allotted the same to respondent no.5. These orders are challenged before this Court.

5. Shri. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent no.3 having entered into a valid and binding contract with the petitioner in pursuance of a valid tender after evaluating the bids of other tenderers, it was not open for the Minster to pass any order interfering with the award of contract. According to him the Minister had no power to interfere in the matter since there is no law invested in the form of revisional or appellate powers on him to do so. The order of the Additional Collector cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner and granting it to the respondent no.5 is illegal.

6. Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.5, submitted that the Minister is invested with the powers of the State Government which has delegated its powers of entering into a contract to the Additional Collector and was therefore, entitled as the Delegator to interfere with the act of the delegatee if the act has been done contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Government Resolution which conferred powers upon him to issue a tender and award the contract in question. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a delegator has power not only to revoke the grant made by the delegatee but also to act concurrently on the matter within the area of delegated authority except in so far as it may had already become bound by an act of its delegation. According to the learned counsel there was no question of the Government having became bound by an act of his delegatee, namely the Additional Collector, since the Additional Collector has acted illegally in disqualifying the tenderers in the first round and wrongly excluded the respondent nos.5 and 6 in the second round. In support of his submissions he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2005)2 SCC 334.

7. Smt. Dangre, learned Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 - including the Minister and the Additional Collector Nagpur, submitted that in addition to the reason given by the learned counsel for respondent no.5, the Minister was entitled to interfere in the award of contract and set aside the contract awarded by the Additional Collector because the Additional Collector in stead of extending the time by 15 days, as required by the Government Resolution, has re-tendered the whole contract and thereby committed an illegality. According to the learned counsel the State being the Delegator of the power to the Additional Collector, the delegatee - Minister had the power to interfere and set aside the contract awarded by the Additional Collector because the Additional Collector exercised the power to award the contract contrary to the terms of the delegation by re-tendering the contract even though he could have only extended the time by 15 days since less than three valid bids were received (instead of re-tender).

8. Before we consider the questions of law, it is necessary to deal with the factual and procedural aspects involved. Firstly, what needs to be decided is whether in fact the Additional Collector 'extended the time' or 're-tendered the contract'. The order dated 9th June, 2010 bear the title 're-tender'. However, the notice makes a clear recital that since three valid tenders have not been received in pursuance of the earlier notice inviting the tenders dated 10th of June, 2010, the time is being extended by a period of 15 days and tenders are being invited again. It appears that the Additional Collector has used the words 're-tender' while really intending to extend the time. As a matter of fact what happened is as follows -

The petitioner who had already submitted his technical and price bid did not furnish a fresh tender. He submitted his price bid and his technical bid had already been opened. He did not furnish a fresh tender. In the extended period five more tenders were received. Out of these tenders, the tenders of respondent nos.5 and 6 were disqualified. Admittedly, the Additional Collector asked all the parties if they had any objection if the petitioners bid, submitted earlier (in which the technical bid had already been opened), is evaluated along with the new bids received from the other parties. It is not in dispute that none of the parties objected to this procedure. It therefore, appears that for all purposes and intent the Additional Collector had merely extended the time in which fresh tenders could be invited and did not 're-tender' the whole contract. It would have been possible to infer a 're-tender' if the petitioners bid made earlier had been returned and he was also asked to submit an entirely fresh tender.

9. Thus the question that arises here for determination is whether the State Government or the Minister as the delegator has the power to interfere with and set aside a contract awarded by its delegatee in exercise of the powers conferred on the delegatee under the Government Resolution dated 2nd of June, 2010 ?

10. Shri. Bhangde, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the Minister, invested with the powers of the State Government had no authority in law to interfere with and set aside a contract awarded by the Additional Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Government Resolution dated 2nd of June, 2010. No power was conferred on the Minister by any law authorizing him to hear an appeal or a revision from the order of the Additional Collector and there was no inherent power vested in the Minister to 'undo' and 'set aside' the act of the Additional Collector. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is well settled that the acts of a delegation in exercise of power conferred administratively on an Officer cannot be interfered with by the State Government unless a power to do so is specifically conferred on or retained by the State Government or the Minister by law.

11. The learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that though there was no law which conferred appellate or revisional powers on the Minister, the Minister being invested with the powers of the State Government had full authority to entertain a representation against the grant of a contract contrary to the Government Resolution under which the Additional Collector was empowered to award the contract and was entitled to set aside the contract, if it was found that the contract had been awarded contrary to the terms of the Government Resolution empowering the Additional Collector to grant such contract and set it aside. In short, the contention is hat if the delegatee acts wrongly, the delegator can set aside his acts. According to the learned counsel in the present case the Minister found it as a fact that the respondent nos.5 and 6 were wrongly found to be ineligible though they had attached all the documents and affidavits in the technical bid and that it is not proper not to consider their tenders due to technical reasons.

12. Smt. Dangre, learned Addl. G.P. for respondents including the Minister and the Additional Collector, submitted that the Minister as the delegator was entitled to interfere with the contract awarded by the Additional Collector because the Additional Collector had not adhered to the terms of the grant of power and had wrongly re-tendered the contract because three valid bids had not been received in the first instance when he was only required to extend the time by fifteen days of receiving additional bids. According to the learned Addl. G.P. a delegatee can only act according to the terms of the delegation and if he fails to act as such, the delegator has inherent power to cancel the act of the delegatee.

13. The term 'delegate' does not imply a parting with powers by the person who grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to himself vide Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.26 in Huth Vs. Clarke, (1890)25 QBD 391 : 63 LT 348. In Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005)2 Supreme Court Cases 334 the Supreme Court has observed as follows -

"8. It is an accepted position in law that to delegate to another is not to denude yourself. As was observed by Wills, J. in Huth Vs. Clarke, (1890)25 QBD : 63 LT 348 :

In my opinion the word, in its general sense and as generally used, does not imply, or point to, a giving up of authority, but rather the conferring of authority upon someone else."

As observed by Lord Coleridge, C.J. In 25 QBD 304, the word delegation implies that powers are committed to another persons or body which are as a rule, always subject to resumption by the authority delegating it. (Per Whartons Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Edn. At p.316.) Delegation also implies also the power to withdraw delegation. As indicated in Wharton's Law Lexicon, delegation is a sending away; a putting into commission; the assignment of a debt to another; the entrusting another with a general power to act for the good of those who depute him. The word delegate means little more than an agent. An agent exercises no power of his own but only the powers of his principal. The observation in Huth Case, (1890) 25 QBD 391 : 63 LT 348, was referred to in Roop Chand case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 539 : AIR 1963 SC 1503. In general, a delegation of power does not imply parting with authority. The delegating body will retain not only power to revoke the grant, but also power to act concurrently on matters within the area of delegated authority except insofar as it may already have become bound by an act of its delegate (see Battelley Vs. Finsbury Borough Council, 1958 LGR 165).

It flows from the above namely that the delegatee exercises powers conferred on him to do things which the delegator otherwise would have to do himself and that the act of the delegatee must be taken to be an act of the delegator. It has been held in a series of decisions by the Supreme Court that if an authority delegates the power to act, the act shall be deemed to be an act of the delegator and that there was no scope for revision of the order of the delegatee by the delegator. Vide State of Orissa Vs. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement, (1998)7 SCC 162 and OCL India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (2003)2 SCC 101, where it is held that the delegator cannot review an order of the delegatee. This position has been accepted and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 334. It must follow therefore, that when a delegatee takes an action in pursuance of the authority - delegation of power in that behalf, his action must be deemed in law to be the action of the delegator and cannot be interfered with by the delegator either by way of revision or review. In the present case the act of awarding the contract by the Additional Collector was one such act by a delegatee.

14. Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6, relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singhs case for justifying the act of the Minister -

"....The delegating body will retain not only power to revoke the grant, but also power to act concurrently on matters within the area of delegated authority except insofar as it may already have become bound by an act of its delegate. (see Battelley Vs. Finsbury Borough Council, 1958 LGR 165)".

It is not possible to see how the observation relied affects or supports the case of the respondent no.5. The observation relied on sets the limit of the power of the delegator to revoke the grant and even act concurrently on matters within the area delegated authority. The delegator may undoubtedly do so except in so far as it may already have became bound by the act of its delegatee. Applying the limit to the present case it must be held that even if the Minister had the power as the Delegator to interfere with the act of the Additional Collector who is the delegatee, the Minister could not have done so after the delegatee had awarded the contract to the petitioner i.e. after the evaluation of all the tenders that were received. When contract was awarded to the petitioner the delegator became bound by the act of its delegatee. Thereafter the contract could have only been invalidated by a competent court of law.

15. Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.5, also submitted that the fraud vitiates everything in law and that a delegator cannot be considered to be bound by any act of fraud of its delegatee. This argument need not be considered any further in the present case since the Minister has not set aside the contract awarded by the Additional Collector on the ground of fraud at all. The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and other,(1979)1 Supreme Court Cases 137 and Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and others Vs. S. Daniel and others, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 374. Avinder Singhs case considered the question whether a notification issued by the State Government imposing a tax under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act was valid after the State Government had directed the various Municipal Bodies in the State to impose the same tax. After considering the power of the delegator to exercise the power even after it was conferred on the delegatee the court upheld the right of the delegator to exercise such power subject of course to certain limits. The Supreme Court upheld the power of the State Government to impose the tax even though the Government could exercise its power under section 90 sub-section 5 without any procedure i.e. of inviting objections from the residence which the Municipal Corporation was bound to do if it were to impose the tax in the exercise of its delegated power. The circumstances of that case are different from the circumstances of the present case and it does not uphold the exercise of the power by the delegator in the present case even after the delegatee has entered into a binding contract with the third party i.e. petitioner because of the broad observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 while justifying the practice of delegated Legislation as follows -

"Thus, we reach the second constitutional rule that the essentials of legislative functions shall not be delegated but the inessentials, however numerous and significant they be, may well be made over to appropriate agencies. Of course, every delegate is subject to the authority and control of the principal and exercise of delegated power can always be directed, corrected or cancelled by the principal. Therefore, the third principle emerges that even if there be delegation, parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a living continuity as a constitutional necessity. Within these tripe principles, Operation Delegation is at once expedient, exigent and even essential if the legislative process is not to get stuck up or bogged down or come to a grinding halt with a few complicated bills."

16. The learned Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.5, can derive no support from the case of Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and others Vs. S. Daniel and others, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 374 where the Supreme Court observed in the context of that case as follows-

"The rule in Roop Chand, 1963 Supp 1 SCR 539 : AIR 1963 SC 1503, as to the nature and character of the power exercised by a delegate was enunciated in a particular context. It cannot be treated as a general principle applicable to all situations."

The learned counsel for the respondent no.5 also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court observed as follows -

"This leads us to the question whether the appointing authority specified in the schedule can exercise his powers of appointment to a post, cadre or service even after he has delegated that power to a subordinate authority under the proviso. An answer to this question in the affirmative is contended for on the strength of certain authorities which may now be considered. In Godawari S. Parulekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 314 : AIR 1966 SC 1404 : 1966 Cri. LJ 1067 the appellant had been detained by an order passed by the State Government under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, that the State Government had earlier issued a notification delegating its powers under Rule 30 to the District Magistrate and was so not competent to make the order of detention in question. Reliance was placed for this argument on the observations of the Judicial Committee in King Emperor Vs. Shibnath Banerji, 72 IA 241 : AIR 1945 PC 156. These observations were distinguished and the above contention was repelled. It was held that by issuing the notification in question, the State Government had not denuded itself of the power to act under Rule 30 (vide Willis J. in Huth Vs. Clarke, (1890) 25 QBD 391 : 63 LT 348). Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in D. V. Rama Chandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (1984) 3 SLR 768 (Kant HC). This case does hod that a power which is delegated can be exercised both by the delegator and the delegatee, though the Supreme Court decisions cited therein as deciding this issue do not seem to help. Halsbury (4th edn., para 32), citing Huth Vs. Clarke, (1890) 25 QBD 391 : 63 LT 348 summarises the English Law on the subject thus :

"In general, a delegation of power does not imply parting with authority. The delegating body will retain not only the power to revoke the grant but also power to act concurrently on matters within the area of delegated authority except insofar as it may already have become bound by an act of its delegate"."

17. There is no doubt that the power which is delegated can be exercised by the delegator hence it is equally true that such a power can be exercised only before the delegator becomes bound by an act of its delegatee. It would indeed be contrary to both, public policy and sound administration if the delegator by use of the concurrent power, transferred to the delegatee was allowed to set at naught the act of the delegatee with a third party entered into with all solemnity by the third party. The situation would be entirely different where the law provided an appeal or a revision against the act of the delegatee. It is not possible to accept that the delegator has an unguided, un-canalized and arbitrary power vested in him and retained by him to set aside the act of its delegatee such as solemnly entering into a contract, merely because the delegator notices some illegalities or irregularities. We do not intend to say that the irregularities and illegalities may be committed but we do intend to say that these may gone into only by a competent court of law when rights and obligations of a third party have come into existence. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16/8/2010 of respondent no.2 and letter dated 17/8/2010 issued by respondent no.3 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The contract awarded to the petitioner under work order dated 20/7/2010 is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

C.A.W. No.2414/2010.

In view of the above order, the civil application does not survive. Hence civil application stands disposed of.

Petition dismissed.