Kaysons Distributors vs Airports Authority Of India & ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 1006 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of his bid for supply of Jersey and Cardigans. Petitioner proceeded on the assumption that the bids given by him were far more competitive, while the contract had been awarded to respondent No. 2, who had quoted higher prices. Bid was in two parts i.e. technical and commercial. As regards the technical bid, the respondents had assigned code numbers to the sample received from each of the bidders, to maintain confidentiality as to the identity of bidder. These samples were sent to the Indian Institute of Technology for examination and evaluation. Respondents acted on basis of the report received from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Petitioner was not found qualified for the Jerseys, but his technical bid for Ladies Cardigans was acceptable. The price quoted by the petitioner for the Ladies Cardigan was Rs. 377/- against Rs. 332/- by respondent No. 2 which it is stated was further reduced to Rs. 320/-. In these circumstances, respondent No.1 submits that they were fully justified in placing the order on the respondent No. 2, who was the lowest bidder and whose bid has been accepted for Jerseys as well as for Ladies Cardigans. The report from the Indian Institute of Technology has been produced in court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that respondent No.1 had accepted the bid of respondent No. 2, which as per the report received from the IIT had offered the Jerseys which were of a higher specification, while the petitioner confined himself to the exact specifications and hence was placed at a disadvantage. This would not advance petitioners case. In case samples given by respondent No.2 were found to be of a higher or better specifications, but within acceptable parameters, then respondent No.1 cannot be faulted for accepting the same, especially when the price offered was also lower. Whether the sample submitted technically meets the specifications and quality or not is a matter best left to experts.

4. In the instant case respondent No.1 had duly taken the precaution of firstly assigning the code numbers to the samples for keeping the identity confidential. Secondly, samples were sent to the reputed Indian Institute of Technology for evaluation. The respondent No.1 had thereafter acted as per reports of IIT. It may be noticed that as per the report of the IIT, the petitioners, bid for Ladies Cardigans had been found to be technically acceptable. However he had quoted a price which was higher than of respondent No.2.

5. I do not think that the petitioner can have any legitimate grievance in this regard. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent No.2 points out that the supplies have already been completed and to this extent, the petition has become infructuous.

6. Writ petition is dismissed as being without merit and having become infructuous.