Sadhna and anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 3. the aforesaid application was contested by the respondents stating therein mat the application was an abuse of process of law as the petitioner had earlier sought amendment with regard to the income of the deceased which was not opposed by the respondents in good faith as there was no income bar for filing a petition under section 166 of the motor vehicle act, whereas, if the petition is filed under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act annual income of the deceased could not be exceeding rs. 6. from the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that petitioner had sought the amendment to reduce the income of the deceased from rs. thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner has in fact adopted a clever method to bye-pass the judgments of this court in the case of himachal road transport corporation (supra) and ram sarup (supra) firstly by seeking amendment in the income from rs.rakesh kumar garg, j.1. the claimant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, fast track court, gurgaon, whereby his application for amendment in the claim petition, to convert his application filed under section 166 of the motor vehicles act to a petition under section 163-a of the motor vehicles act by restricting the income of the deceased to less than rs. 40,000/- per annum has been rejected by relying upon a division bench judgment of this court in the case of himachal road transport corporation v. baldev kumar nayyar .2. as per the averments made in the petition, husband of the petitioner met with an accident and died. petitioner filed a claim petition mentioning the income of her husband as rs. 24,000/- per month. thereafter, she moved an application for amendment in her claim. motor accident claims tribunal, gurgaon vide its order dated 13.08.2007 allowed the proposed amendment and income of her husband was reduced from rs. 24,000/- to rs. 3,200/- per month. petitioner moved another application for converting her claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicle act into under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act.3. the aforesaid application was contested by the respondents stating therein mat the application was an abuse of process of law as the petitioner had earlier sought amendment with regard to the income of the deceased which was not opposed by the respondents in good faith as there was no income bar for filing a petition under section 166 of the motor vehicle act, whereas, if the petition is filed under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act annual income of the deceased could not be exceeding rs. 40,000/- per annum. the petitioner did not disclose his intention of getting the claim petition converted into under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act. at the time of seeking amendment with regard to the income of the deceased by concealing his true intention, it was mentioned in the earlier application for amendment that by inadvertence and typing mistake rs. 24,000/- per month was written instead of rs. 3,200/- per month and thus, by this amendment, petitioner is seeking to scale down her income to bring it under section 163-a of which is not permissible in law. the tribunal, vide impugned order rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner.4. challenging the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the claim petition pending before the tribunal was at an initial stage and there was no bar under the law to convert he petition filed under section 166 of the motor vehicle act into under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act and therefore the tribunal has erred at law while passing the impugned order. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and has argued that by way of amendment, petitioner cannot be allowed to scale down his income so as to make room for provisions of section 163-a of the act and in support of his case he has relied upon judgments of this court passed in the case of himachal road transport corporation (supra) and ram sarup v. lakhpat singh (2009)153 p.l.r. 633.5. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. there is no dispute with the proposition of law as envisaged in himachal road transport corporation (supra). after relying upon the aforesaid judgment and deepak girishbhai soni and ors. v. united india insurance co. ltd. baroda : air2004sc2107 and gurmeet singh v. chandigarh transport undertaking and ors. (2007) 146 p.l.r. 574, this court held in the case of ram sarup (supra) held that it is not open for a person to notionally scale down his income so as to invoke the provisions of section 163-a of the act and thereby defeating the very object of section 163-a of the act.6. from the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that petitioner had sought the amendment to reduce the income of the deceased from rs. 24,000/- to rs. 3,200/- per month by stating that it was an inadvertent and typographical error, which was allowed vide order dated 13.08.2007. however, petitioner filed the present application only after three days i.e. 17.08.2007 seeking permission of the tribunal for converting the claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicle act into under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act. thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner has in fact adopted a clever method to bye-pass the judgments of this court in the case of himachal road transport corporation (supra) and ram sarup (supra) firstly by seeking amendment in the income from rs. 24,000/- per month to rs. 3,200/- per month and immediately thereafter seeking permission to convert his petition from under section 166 of the motor vehicle act into under section 163-a of the motor vehicle act. thus, the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent the rule of law.7. it may also be noticed that there is no bar of income if the petitioner continues with his claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicle act and no prejudice is going to be caused to him.thus, i find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.dismissed.