the appellants. In the first instance, it is to be noted that BEC is
only a recommendatory authority. It is the Competent Authority
which is to ultimately decide as to whether the recommendation of
BEC is to be accepted or not. We are not entering into the
discussion as to whether this Competent Authority is the State
Government or the Municipal Corporation. Fact remains that
there is no approval by either of them. Matter has not even
reached the Competent Authority and no final decision was taken
to accept the bid of respondent No.1 herein. Much before that,
when the BEC was informed that there were only two valid bids
before it when it made its recommendation on September 08,
2010 and as per the Financial Rules there must be three or more
bids to ensure that bidding process becomes competitive, the
BEC realised its mistake and recalled its recommendation dated
September 08, 2010. It cannot be said that such a decision was
unfair, mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations. This,
coupled with the fact that the authority has right to accept or reject
any bid and even to annul the whole bidding process, the High
Court was not justified in interfering with such a decision of the
BEC.
The High Court has also gone wrong in finding fault with the
decision of the BEC by holding that such a subsequent decision
could not have been taken by the BEC without notice to or in the
absence of the appellant. When the decision making process had
not reached any finality and was still in embryo and there was no
acceptance of the bid of respondent No.1 by the Competent
Authority, no right (much less enforceable right) accrued to
respondent No.1. In such a situation, there was no question of
giving any notice or hearing to respondent No.1.
NON – REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1437 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9170 OF 2012)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
VERSUS
M/S. AL FAHEEM MEETEX PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Citation:(2016) 4 SCC716
