The Supreme Court in the case Jai Bholenath Construction vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded observed and set aside a Bombay High Court judgment, while dismissing the writ petition. The top court referred to the judgement of the case M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others. The bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and the Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed and contended that the High Court has totally missed the judgement of this court. Facts of the Case: for the construction of staff quarters of the Primary Health Centre, Ewaleshwar, Taulka Mahur, District Nanded, a tender was published for inviting offers. Jai Bholenath Construction and L.D. Constructions and including four other bidders participated in the bid and Jai Bholenath Construction was found to be the lowest bidder but the Letter of Intent was not issued to it. Thereafter, it is also decided by Zila Parishad that M/s L.D. Constructions was excluded from the process and was declared it ineligible for non-compliance of the documents but later it was found that L.D Constructions was eligible and tender was allotted to it. The cancellation of tender which was allotted to Jai Bholenath Construction was challenged before the court alleging that the same was granted to the rival bidder. Several disputed issues were found by the High Court. The Court further took the view of an order passed by a Coordinate Bench which declined to interfere in the writ petitions in the light of a judgment in M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others. While referring to the above case the High Court dismissed the Write petition. However, Jai Bholenath Construction approached the Apex Court by filing an appeal. The Apex Court observed while taking note of the consideration raised in the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 was declared eligible in a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and all fairness in the process of determining the eligibility of the tenderers and when at the time of opening of technical bids, the bid of Respondent No. 4 was accepted and the respondent was disqualified. Furthermore, the manner in which the bid is accepted, It shows the arbitrary exercise of power. the court set aside the High Court judgment and directed the Zilla Parishad to process the matter further from the stage prior to issuance of corrigendum, while allowing the appeal.
