HC cancels contract for golf course

The court was hearing a petition filed last year by Makhija Developers seeking to either reconsider the proposal submitted by them or to invite fresh bids and award the contract after assessing them. The court observed that “the decision awarding the tender must be bona fide and in public interest—and not arbitrary or illegal”. “When a public property or the property of a public undertaking is being transferred or alienated,it must receive the best market price/lease amount,” the judges observed.

The court,meanwhile,has granted liberty to Mistry Constructions,BSEL Infrastructure and Makhija Developers to respond to the proposed bids. As many as18 parties had submitted their proposals earlier. Though CIDCO had initially labelled Mistry Constructions as a “non-responsive bidder” as it did not furnish a bank guarantee of Rs 20 crore,it later awarded the contract to the latter.

BSEL had challenged the contract earlier,but the parties settled the dispute. CIDCO then issued a letter of intent in favour of Mistry Constructions,which was challenged by Makhija Developers. Stating that the lack of bona fides is writ large,the judges concluded that “CIDCO failed to come up to the expectations as a public body to maintain transparency”.

The lease agreement for the project was signed on August 22,2009.