Delhi High Court
P. Sharma Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on 23 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 355, 96 (2002) DLT 429, 2002 (62) DRJ 42
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This is an application for interim relief in a
petition in which the petitioner has challenged the Notice
Inviting offers (hereinafter referred to as NIT) dated 17th
July 2000 which invited tenders for the supply of Cable
Records Purification System (CRPS). The technical bids were
opened on 25th August 2000 and the financial bids were opened
on 4th January 2001. In this petition the petitioner has
challenged the tender document pursuant to the NIT dated
17th July 2000 on the ground that there are glaring
infirmities in the system of respondent No. 4 as it was not
in conformity with the Tender Document. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the award to respondent
No. 4 is clearly in violation of the NIT particularly when
the configuration was different from what was tendered and
on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be
admitted and the purchase order in favor of the respondent
No. 4 liable to be cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has
contended that the of the terms and conditions of the tender
document were fully met by and none of the general and
functional requirements alleged to have been violated by the
petitioner have been violated. It was further submitted by
the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that it had offered
a configuration more advanced than that ordered by
respondent No. 1 and the system required only automatically
scanning of 1200 termination at a time at MDF. He further
contended that the goods offered in response by the
respondent No. 4 were capable of terminating 2000 pairs, a
quantity much larger than sought by respondent No. 1 by the
tender. He further relied on the following data to contend
that his system is far superior to that of the petitioner:
Petitioner's Respondent's
System System
up to 1200 lines up to 2000 lines
upgradable to
3600 lines
3. The respondent No. 4 further submitted that the bid
of the respondent No. 4 was lower than that of the
petitioner by 15 per cent and the petitioner was given an
opportunity by the respondent No. 3 to supply the CRFS as per
the configuration system offered by respondent No. 4 at
respondent No. 4's rates which offer was declined by the
respondent No. 1.
submitted that without prejudice to any of the other pleas
of the respondent No. 4 the writ petition suffered from
totally unexplained laches and in that view of the matter no
interim order of any kind whatsoever was called for apart
from the fact that the writ petition itself is not
maintainable. In support of this plea learned counsel for
the respondent No. 4 relied upon the following sequence of
events:
- NIT was issued on 17th July 2000.
- On 25th August 2001 the technical bids were
opened by the respondent No. 3 and on 4th January
2001 the functional bids were opened.
- On 31st July 2001 the order was passed in favor
of respondent No. 4.
- On 14th August 2001 the bank guarantee was given
and the letter of credit was thereafter opened
- The present writ petition was filed only on 18th
October 2001
- He submitted that in this view of the matter no
indulgence can be given to the petitioner in view
of the laches of the petitioner which have
remained totally unexplained in the writ petition
as well as in the application for interim relief.
It was further submitted that mere making a
representations on 13th August 2001 and 4th October 2001 was
merely a ruse to get over the unexplained laches and
accordingly the writ petition and the stay application
warranted dismissal. He further relied upon the
petitioner's representation dated 13th August 2001 which
itself demonstrated that on 19th March 2001 the petitioner
was fully aware of the alleged deficiencies in the
respondent No. 4's tender and was not thus entitled to any
interim order.
5. Without going into the merits of the writ petition,
at this stage, I am satisfied that the sequence of events
demonstrates that the technical bid was opened as far back
as in August 2000 and the Financial Bids were opened on 4th
January 2001. In any case the petitioner was aware on 19th
March 2001 about the alleged deficiencies of respondent
No. 4's tender and even then the writ petition was not filed
for a long period thereafter and a further representation
was sought to be made on 13th August 2001 followed by a
reminder. In the interregnum the respondent No. 4 has taken
action pursuant to the award of tender by giving a bank
guarantee as well as opened a letter of credit. There is no
explanation worth the name about the laches and any grant of
interim relief would cause severe prejudice to the
respondent No. 4 for no fault of its. Furthermore, the
petitioner though given the offer to match the respondent
No. 4's rate and items, declined to do so. Consequently the
application for interim relief warrants dismissal.
6. I am satisfied that the interim order cannot be
granted/continued in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly
the order dated 19th October, 2001 stands vacated.
IA stands disposed of.
CW. 6533/2001
RULE.
Copy of the order be given dusty to the parties,
subject to the payment of usual charges.
