Aman Arora And Anr vs Nehru Memorial Museum & Library
2016 Latest Caselaw 3939 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 24.05.2016


+       W.P.(C) 4843/2016

AMAN ARORA AND ANR                                             ... Petitioners

                                       versus

NEHRU MEMORIAL MUSEUM & LIBRARY                                ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners   : Mr Arjun Harkauli with Mr Satyawan Shekhawat
For the Respondent    : Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 20203/2016 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4843/2016 & CM 20202/2016(stay)

1. This writ petition has been filed in respect of the Notice Inviting

Tender for supply of full dome 3-D projection system, installation, testing

and warranty at Nehru Planetarium, New Delhi. The tender has been

invited by the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Teen Murti House,

New Delhi. The tender was invited on 20.04.2016 and the last date of

submission of bids is 25.05.2016.

2. The petitioner has raised several grievances, but the main grievance

is with regard to the Clauses 1.27.1 and 1.27.2, which form part of the

technical eligibility criteria prescribed under Clause 1.27 of the Instructions

to Bidders.

3. The relevant Clauses are as under:-

"1.27 Technical Eligibility Criteria:

The following are some of the criteria required to be eligible technically for further consideration in the bid process.

1.27.1 The tenderer should have a minimum of five years of existence in the field of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Planetarium systems, with experience of three years in supplying and installing Full Dome digital systems and an experience of at least two years of installing Full Dome 3D systems.

1.27.2 The tenderer should have installed at least five Full Dome digital systems worldwide and two full dome 3D systems. Documents in support of experience claim must be submitted. A satisfaction/recommendation letter from at least two planetaria where the Vendor has installed full dome digital projection systems as also such letters from planetaria where full dome 3D system has been installed, should be submitted. In particular such letters from Indian planetaria, if available, should be submitted. Reputation, in terms of continued onsite

support provided, after the initial installation, will also be considered, and supporting documents may be provided.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has requisite experience for

full dome 3-D projection systems. Yet, the petitioner would not be eligible

for the said tender because the respondent has specified the requirement of

minimum five years of existence in the field of supply/installation/testing

and commissioning of planetarium systems. It is the case of the petitioner

that the condition of experience in planetarium systems is arbitrary and

unreasonable inasmuch as the petitioner would have full expertise in

installing the full dome 3-D system even in a planetarium. It is also the

case of the petitioner that there is no technical literature which provides for

specialized planetarium systems.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the tender conditions and eligibility criteria have been specified

keeping in mind the specific requirement of the respondent. The conditions

cannot be tailor-made to suit the petitioner. The suitability has to be

considered from the standpoint of the institution inviting tenders and not of

a person who does not fit in the eligibility criteria. The learned counsel for

the respondent drew our attention to Clause 1.27.2, which has been

extracted above, to indicate that there is a specific requirement of the

respondent that a satisfaction/recommendation letter from at least two

planetaria where the vendor has installed full dome digital projection

systems as also such letters from planetaria where full dome 3D system has

been installed. It is obvious that the eligibility criteria has been specified

keeping in mind the specific requirements of the respondent.

6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner does not have any

experience in planetarium systems and, therefore, would not be able to

produce any satisfaction/recommendation letter from any planetarium with

regard to installation of a full dome digital projection system.

7. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and

Others: (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated in

paragraph 23(c) thereof that in the matter of formulating conditions of a

tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be

conceded to the State authorities and that unless the action of the tendering

authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers,

interference by Courts is not warranted. Paragraph (d) of the said

paragraph 23 also indicates that certain preconditions or qualifications for

tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity

and the resources to successfully execute the work.

8. The eligibility criteria stipulated in Clauses 1.27.1 and 1.27.2 of the

Instructions to Bidders, in our view, do not appear to be unreasonable or

arbitrary. For this reason, no interference is called for. The writ petition is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



MAY 24, 2016                              SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR