>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Yiming Company v. People's Government of Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province, et al. (Case of Dispute over Illegal Administrative Act)
益民公司诉河南省周口市政府等行政行为违法案
【法宝引证码】

Yiming Company v. People’s Government of Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province, et al. (Case of Dispute over Illegal Administrative Act)
(Case of Dispute over Illegal Administrative Act)
益民公司诉河南省周口市政府等行政行为违法案

Yiming Company v. People's Government of Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province, et al.
(Case of Dispute over Illegal Administrative Act)@#
@#
@#
Administrative Judgment No. 6 [2004] of the Final Instance of the Supreme People's Court@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff of the First Instance): Zhoukou Yiming Gas Co., Ltd., situated at No. 1 Building, Nanshan Goods Street, Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Ma Yiqing, board chairman of the company.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhu Weiping, Attorney-at-law of Beijing Jintai Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant of the First Instance): People's Government of Zhoukou Municipality, situated at the Eastern Section of Qiyi Road, Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Gao Deling, mayor of the municipality.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Shuyi, professor of China University of Political Science and Law.@#
Authorized Agent: Ying Songnian, professor of China University of Political Science and Law.@#
Appellee (Defendant of the First Instance): Development Planning Commission of Zhoukou Municipality, situated at the Eastern Section of Qiyi Road, Zhoukou Municipality, Henan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Yin Jianyong, director of the Commission.@#
Authorized Agent: Ma Huaide, professor of China University of Political Science and Law.@#
Authorized Agent: Xin Zhiting, Attorney-at-law of Henan Tuanjie Law Firm.@#
Third Party of the First Instance: Henan Yixing Industry (Group) Co., Ltd., situated at No. 9, Northern Yellow River Street, Zhengzhou Municipality, Henan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Li Shiqiang, chairman of the board of the company.@#
Authorized Agent: Song Yafang, Attorney-at-law of Hennan Zhengzhou University Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Zhigang, Attorney-at-law of Henan Zhongwang Law Firm.@#
Zhoukou Yiming Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yimin Company”) was not satisfied with the Administrative Judgment No. 1 [2003] of the First Instance of the Higher People's Court of Henan Province and appealed to this Court for the case regarding the issuance of the Legal-person Bid Invitation Scheme for the Project of Urban Natural Gas Pipeline Network and the Bid-winning Notice to Henan Yixing Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yixing Company”) by the Development Planning Commission of Zhoukou Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Municipal Planning Commission”), and the issuance of the Notice on Granting the Exclusive Right to Operate the Project of Urban Gas Pipeline Network within the Planned Areas of Zhoukou Municipality to Yixing Company by the People's Government of Zhoukou Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Municipality Government”). This Court convened a collegial panel composed of Zhou Honggeng as the chief judge and Mao Baoping and Wang Zhenyu as acting judges, and publicly heard the case on November 17, 2004. Ma Yiqing, Zhu Weiping, Zhang Shuyi, Ma Huaide, Xin Zhiting, Li Shiqiang, Song Yafang and Zhang Zhigang have appeared in the court for litigation; but Gao Dengsong, Ying Songnian and Yin Jianyong have not appeared in the court due to some reasons. This case has now been finalized.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Upon trial, the court of the first instance found that: On April 26, 2003, the Municipal Planning Commission sent out bid invitation letters to Yixing Company, Yiming Company and other 11 enterprises, and started to organize the legal-person bid invitation for the project of urban gas pipeline network of Zhoukou Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “project involved in this case”), and released the Legal-person Bid Invitation Scheme for the Project of Urban Gas Pipeline Network (hereinafter referred to as “Bid Invitation Scheme”) on May 2, 2003, which stated that, “Upon the strength of the authorization of the Municipal Government, the Municipal Planning Commission of Zhoukou Municipality formulated the legal-person bid invitation scheme for the project of urban gas pipeline network of Zhoukou Municipality”. The Bid Invitation Scheme also stated that the Municipal Government would entrust Zhoukou Construction Investing Company to participate in the business operations of the project involved in this case (the Municipal Government released the No. 76 [2003] Document for canceling Zhoukou Construction Investing Company on August 15, 2003, and actually this company did not participate in the business operations of the project involved in this case) after a tenderer won the bid. The Bid Invitation Scheme and its supplementary notices also prescribed that any tenderer “shall timely transfer 50 million yuan of deposit into the account as designated by Zhoukou Municipality, and the deposit of the bid-winning enterprise should be used for the construction of Zhoukou natural gas project”. Yiming Company did not pay the 50 million yuan of deposit when entering its name for the bid, and did not participate in final bid competition. The bid invitation was formally held on May 12, 2003. When carrying out the bid invitation, the Municipal Planning Commission organized a seven-person bid evaluation committee by selecting five experts from the expert bank of Henan Fangyuan Tendering Agency Co., Ltd. as well as the deputy secretary-general of Zhoukou Municipal Committee of the CPC and the deputy secretary-general of the Municipal Government. On June 19, 2003, the Municipal Planning Commission, in light of the bid evaluation and inspection results, issued a Bid-winning Notice to Yixing Company, which said, “Henan Yixing Industry Co., Ltd.: the legal person for the project of urban natural gas pipeline network of Zhoukou Municipality, has passed the selective bid invitation and won the bid upon recommendation of the bid evaluation committee and upon submission thereof to the Municipal Government for approval”. On June 20, 2003, the Municipal Government circulated the No. 54 [2003] Notice on the Exclusive Right of Henan Yixing Industry Co., Ltd. to Operate the Project of Urban Gas Pipeline Network within the Planned Areas of Zhoukou Municipality (hereinafter referred to as “No. 54 Notice”), which said, “In order to promote the economic development of this Municipality, improve the construction of urban infrastructure and enhance the living quality of citizens, the Municipal Government agreed with the opinions of the bid evaluation committee concerning the project of urban gas pipeline network of Zhoukou Municipality, and decided that Henan Yixing Industry Co., Ltd. would exclusively operate the project of urban gas pipeline network within the planned areas of Zhoukou Municipality”. Upon service of the No. 54 Notice, Yixing Company handled the formalities on land use for the project involved in this case, purchased the gas transportation pipelines and other pipeline network facilities, concluded a "Just Pay, No Bargain" agreement on gas use (hereinafter referred to as the “gas using agreement”) with PetroChina West-East Gas Pipeline Company (hereinafter referred to as “PetroChina”) in November 2003, and started the construction of the project involved in this case. Yiming Company deemed that the Bid Invitation Scheme, the Bid-winning Notice and the No. 54 Notice formulated by the Municipal Planning Commission and the Municipal Government violated the law and infringed on its exclusive right to operate the pipeline gas, and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Henan Province.@#
......

 

益民公司诉河南省周口市政府等行政行为违法案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据最高人民法院《关于执行<中华人民共和国行政诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第五十八条的规定,被诉具体行政行为违反了法律规定,且损害了相对人信赖利益,但如果撤销该行政行为,将会给公共利益造成重大损失的,应确认被诉具体行政行为违法,并责令被诉行政机关采取相应的补救措施。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
行政判决书@#
(2004)行终字第6号@#
@#
上诉人(一审原告):周口市益民燃气有限公司。住所地:河南省周口市南山货街1号楼。@#
法定代表人:马义清,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:朱卫平,北京金台律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(一审被告):周口市人民政府。住所地:河南省周口市七一路东段。@#
法定代表人:高德领,该市市长。@#
委托代理人:张树义,中国政法大学教授。@#
委托代理人:应松年,国家行政学院教授。@#
被上诉人(一审被告):周口市发展计划委员会。住所地:河南省周口市七一路东段。@#
法定代表人:殷建勇,该委员会主任。@#
委托代理人:马怀德,中国政法大学教授。@#
委托代理人:辛治廷,河南团结律师事务所律师。@#
原审第三人:河南亿星实业集团有限公司。住所地:河南省郑州市黄河北街9号。@#
法定代表人:李士强,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:宋雅芳,河南郑大律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:张志刚,河南众望律师事务所律师。@#
周口市益民燃气有限公司(以下简称益民公司)因其诉周口市发展计划委员会(以下简称市计委)发布《周口市天然气城市管网项目法人招标方案》、向河南亿星实业集团有限公司(以下简称亿星公司)下发《中标通知书》,周口市人民政府(以下简称市政府)下发《关于河南亿星实业集团有限公司独家经营周口市规划区域内城市管网燃气工程的通知》一案,不服河南省高级人民法院(2003)豫法行初字第1号行政判决,向本院提出上诉。本院依法组成由周红耕担任审判长、代理审判员毛保平、王振宇参加的合议庭,于2004年11月17日公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人益民公司法定代表人马义清、委托代理人朱卫平,被上诉人市政府委托代理人张树义,被上诉人市计委委托代理人马怀德、辛治廷,原审第三人亿星公司法定代表人李士强,委托代理人宋雅芳、张志刚出庭参加诉讼,被上诉人市政府法定代表人高德领、委托代理人应松年,被上诉人市计委法定代表人殷建勇因故未出庭。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
一审法院经审理查明:2003年4月26日,市计委向亿星公司、益民公司等13家企业发出邀标函,着手组织周口市天然气城市管网项目法人招标,同年5月2日发出《周口市天然气城市管网项目法人招标方案》(以下简称《招标方案》)其中称,“受周口市人民政府委托,周口市发展计划委员会组织人员编制了周口市天然气城市管网项目法人招标方案”。该方案规定,投标人中标后,市政府委托周口市建设投资公司介入项目经营(市政府于2003年8月15日作出周政[2003]76号文撤销了该公司,该公司未实际介入项目经营)。该方案及其补充通知中还规定,投标人应“按时将5000万元保证金打入周口指定帐户,中标企业的保证金用于周口天然气项目建设”。益民公司在报名后因未能交纳5000万元保证金而没有参加最后的竞标活动。同年5月12日,正式举行招标。在招标时,市计委从河南省方圆招标代理有限责任公司专家库中选取了5名专家,另有周口市委副秘书长和市政府副秘书长共7人组成评标委员会。同年6月19日,市计委依据评标结果和考察情况向亿星公司下发了《中标通知书》,其中称:“河南亿星实业集团有限公司:周口市天然气城市管网项目法人,通过邀请招标,经评标委员会推荐,报请市政府批准,确定由你公司中标”。同年6月20日,市政府作出周政(2003)54号《关于河南亿星实业集团有限公司独家经营周口市规划区域内城市管网燃气工程的通知》(以下简称54号文),其中称:“为促进我市的经济发展,完善城市基础设施建设,提高居民生活质量,市政府同意周口市燃气城市管网项目评标委员会意见,由河南亿星实业集团公司独家经营周口市规划区域内城市天然气管网工程”。54号文送达后,亿星公司办理了天然气管网的有关项目用地手续,购置了输气管道等管网设施,于2003年11月与中国石油天然气股份有限公司西气东输管道分公司(以下简称中石油公司)签订了“照付不议”用气协议,并开始动工开展管网项目建设。益民公司认为,市计委、市政府作出的上述《招标方案》、《中标通知》和54号文违反了法律规定,并侵犯了其依法享有的管道燃气经营权,向河南省高级人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
一审法院另查明:益民公司经工商注册成立于1999年4月(未取得燃气经营资格),经营范围为管道燃气、燃气具、高新技术和房地产。2000年7月7日,原周口地区建设局以周地建城(2000)10号文对益民公司作出《关于对周口市益民燃气有限责任公司为“周口市管道燃气专营单位”的批复》,该批复主要内容为:“按照建设部第62号令、河南省人民政府第47号令、河南省建设厅豫建城(1996)69号文之规定和‘一个城市只允许批准一家管道燃气经营单位'的原则,根据设计方案及专家论证,该项目既能近期满足工业与民用对燃气的需要,又能与天然气西气东输工程接轨。经审查,批准你公司为周口城市管道燃气专营单位”。益民公司取得该文后,又先后取得了燃气站《建设用地规划许可证》,周口市(现周口市川汇区)大庆路、八一路等路段的燃气管网铺设《建设工程规划许可证》和《建设工程施工许可证》等批准文件。到一审判决为止,益民公司已在周口市川汇区建成燃气调压站并在该区的主要街道和部分小区实际铺设了一些燃气管道。2002年9月20日,面对当时周口市两个燃气公司即益民公司和周口市燃气有限公司(由周口市政府与北京中燃公司联合组建,后来解散)并存的状况,市政府常务会议作出决议称:“不管什么情况,在没弄清问题之前,益民公司铺设管道工作必须停止,此事由市规划管理局负责落实”。同年9月23日。周口市规划管理局作出了通知,其中称:“根据《河南省<城市规划法>实施办法》第三十三条‘在城市规划区内新建、扩建、改建建筑物、构筑物、道路、管线和其他工程设施,城市规划行政主管部门应提供规划设计条件,建设单位和个人必须取得建设工程规划许可证'的规定和周口市人民政府常务会议纪要(2002)5号要求,不管什么情况,在没有弄清问题之前,益民公司铺设管道工作必须停止”。@#
2003年11月9日,周口市建设委员会作出周建城(2003)39号文,以原周口地区建设局周地建城(2000)10号文授予益民公司管道燃气专营单位资格缺少法律依据,不符合有关规章和规范性文件,属越权审批为由废止了该文。@#
河南省高级人民法院一审认为:@#
(一)关于益民公司的原告主体资格@#
1999年4月益民公司已取得工商营业执照,其经营范围包括燃气,2000年7月,益民公司又取得原周口地区建设局关于授予益民公司管道燃气专营权的批复,其中注明益民公司经营的燃气项目既能近期满足周口市(川汇区)工业与民用对燃气的需要,又能与“西气东输”工程接轨。2003年5月到6月,市计委和市政府基于建设部建城[2002]272号《关于加快市政公用行业市场化进程的意见》(以下简称建设部272号文)关于公用事业要开放市场、通过招标确定特许经营权人的政策规定,就周口市的天然气管网项目进行招标并确定了亿星公司对周口市天然气管网项目的独家经营权。由于当时益民公司的燃气经营权未被废止或撤销,亿星公司的天然气管网项目独家经营权直接与益民公司的燃气经营权冲突。如果被诉行政行为成立或产生法律效果,益民公司对天然气的经营权就不能行使。所以,益民公司与被诉行政行为有法律上的利害关系,具备本案的原告主体资格。@#
(二)关于被诉行政行为的合法性审查@#
1.关于招标方案的合法性@#
益民公司1999年已取得经营燃气的工商许可,2000年原周口地区建设局以周地建城(2000)10号文批准益民公司为管道燃气专营单位。在新的政策要求对公用事业的经营实行开放、通过招标确定经营者的情况下,如果对周口市天然气管网项目法人进行招标,应当首先处理益民公司的管道燃气经营权问题。市计委在益民公司的燃气经营权未被撤销的情况下发布天然气管网项目法人方案属程序违法。@#
招标方案中规定市政府委托周口市建设投资有限公司介入周口市天然气管网项目运作,虽然其主观动机是为了加强对公用行业的管理,但不符合国家关于政府不能经商的政策规定,因此,招标方案的相关内容不妥。关于原告提出的市政府在不出一分钱的情况下占“干股”35%的问题,因证据不足不予认定。@#
2.关于中标通知的合法性@#
根据国务院关于“西气东输”工程的领导体制和主管部门的规定,河南省人民政府办公厅豫政办(2002)第35号文《关于加快西气东输利用工作的通知》第二条规定,以及市政府关于各职能部门的权限划分情况,可以认定周口市计委有组织招标的职权。@#
中华人民共和国招标投标法》(以下简称《招标投标法》)没有禁止设置保证金的规定,而且市计委设定5000万保证金是为了确保中标人的经营实力,并不违法。@#
招标方案中规定招标实行公开招标,而在实际招标时未公开公布招标方案,且适用了邀请招标的程序;另一方面,本案中的招标项目是省级重点项目,按照《河南省实施招标投标法办法》第十三条和国家建设部272号文第二条的规定,应当适用公开招标程序,如果适用邀请招标程序,应经过省人民政府或国家计委批准,但本案中适用邀请招标方式未经批准。因而市计委在未经批准的情况下适用邀请招标方式违法。@#
根据《招标投标法》二十四条规定,给投标人的准备时间不得少于20天。本案中,被告发出邀标函的时间是4月26日,通知招标方案的时间是5月2日,开标时间是5月12日。投票人的准备时间应从取得招标文件之日起算,从被告发出招标方案到开标时间中间是10天时间,不符合法律关于准备时间不得少于20天的规定,因此,市计委给投标人的准备时间违法。@#
按照《招标投标法》三十七条规定,评标委员会成员中专家应占三分之二以上,其他人可以是政府代表。本案中的评标人是七人,其中五人从专家代理机构中抽取,有专家资格,另二人即市委和市政府副秘书长虽不是从法定代理机构中抽取的,但是属于政府代表。具有专家资格的评标人已占评标委员会成员三分之二以上,因此,本案中的评标人组成不违法。@#
《招标投标法》七条规定招标活动应当接受监督,但没有规定必须是事中监督,因此,周口市计委组织招标时未通知行政监察部门参加不违法。@#
综上,招标通知在适用邀请招标方式、给投标人的准备时间两个方面有违法之处。@#
3.关于54号文的合法性@#
益民公司1999年取得燃气经营权,2000年取得燃气专营权,在益民公司的经营权和专营权未经法律程序被撤销的情况下,市政府又授予亿星公司天然气管网项目经营权,由于燃气包含天然气,这种做法形成的益民公司和亿星公司在天然气经营权上的冲突。虽然益民公司的专营权在本案诉讼过程中被废止,但在市计委招标和市政府作出54号文时,益民公司的专营权还未被撤销,其营业执照至今未被撤销。@#
54号文是依据招标作出的,招标方案和招标通知存在违法之处,54号文缺乏合法的依据,因此构成违法行政行为。@#
关于亿星公司的燃气经营资格和燃气经营经验问题,在国务院2002年宣布取消的审批事项目录中,取消了燃气经营资格审批制度。因此,在这个问题上,54号文授予亿星公司天然气经营权不违法。@#
对益民公司已建的管道等设施,市政府可以采取补救措施进行处理。因此,市政府将天然气管网经营权授予亿星公司不当然意味着导致重复建设。@#
综合上述对被诉行政行为的合法性审查情况,可以认定被诉的招标方案、招标通知和54号文违法,但根据最高人民法院《关于执行<中华人民共和国行政诉讼法>若干问题的解释》(以下简称《若干解释》)第五十八条之规定,对被诉的三个行政行为不予撤销,对原告益民公司施工的燃气工程由市政府采取补救措施予以解决,具体理由是:@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥1500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese