Karnataka High Court
Blackbox Gps Technology Opc Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 13.06.2024
Pronounced on : 03.09.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8260 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
BLACKBOX GPS TECHNOLOGY OPC PRIVATE LIMITED
UNIT NO.E5D, 5TH FLOOR, TOWER B
GODREJ ETERNIA, PLOT NO.70,
INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1
CHANDIGARH - 160 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
IT'S SOLE DIRECTOR
MR.RAJESH VAIDYA
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.K.NANDA KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
2
NO.153, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(ADMINISTRATION)
O/O TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-1 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE OF RULE
NISI CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY REJECTION OF PETITIONER'S BID SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED
AS BEING ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY; QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 6.3.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) OF REJECTION OF THE BID
OF THE PETITIONER; DIRECTING THE R2 TO INCLUDE THE
PETITIONER IN THE LIST OF EMPANELLED MANUFACTURERS
UNDER THE SECOND CALL.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 06-03-2024 by which the bid of the petitioner comes to be
rejected by the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Sri C. K. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a company specialized in GPS
based vehicle tracking devices and holds the position as a pioneer
in vehicle tracking system. The 2nd respondent/Department of
Transport and Road Safety of the State of Karnataka is entrusted
with road transport related functions by notifying a scheme of
installation of vehicle tracking devices under the Nirbhaya
framework by calling for empanelment of manufacturers. The
empanelment was for the purpose of installation of location tracking
devices as per AIS 140 specification. The petitioner participated in
the first call of empanelment on 09-02-2023 for the registration of
AIS 140 certified vehicle location tracking devices. The petitioner
emerges successful and is empanelled. After the empanelment
comes the participation in the bids adhering to certain certified
eligibility criteria. The petitioner, as observed hereinabove,
participated in the first call for empanelment and on certain
clarifications and alleged shortcomings, the petitioner's
empanelment was successful. The petitioner, after getting
empanelled, is said to have committed into significant financial
resources to distribute 1000 VLT devices to one of its authorized
dealers to immediately start the business. The petitioner also is said
to have increased its employee base in the State of Karnataka and
set up an office for the smooth running of its business after the
aforesaid successful empanelment. A purchase order was issued by
AV Solutions on the petitioner for supply of 5000 VLT devices.
4. When things stood thus comes an e-mail from the 2nd
respondent that petitioner's empanelment is recalled. The reason
stated was evaluation process. The 2nd respondent through the said
communication unilaterally terminates the first call of
empanelment. The reason, as observed, was evaluation process.
This happens on 17-01-2024. The very next day i.e., on
18-01-2024 a fresh call for empanelment of VLT devices comes
about. It is the averment in the petition that there is no difference
between the first call and the second call qua eligibility criteria. The
petitioner then submitted an application on 25-01-2024 to its
banker to renew the fixed deposit receipt previously submitted by
it, pursuant to the first call, so as to make it compliant with the
second call within the stipulated timeline. The petitioner is said to
have duly submitted its bid for the second call including all requisite
documents and performance guarantee. The application that it had
made to the Banker seeking renewal was appended to a covering
letter to the 2nd respondent. The application submitted on the
second call was analyzed. The fixed deposit receipt provided by the
petitioner which had a maturity date up to 23-02-2028 was subject
to auto renewal extending its validity up to 23-02-2029.
5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid renewal being submitted by
the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner comes to be rejected. No
reasons were assigned. A communication in this regard was
addressed to the petitioner on 06-03-2024. The petitioner sought
to enquire the reasons for rejection of the bid. No response came
about and therefore, the petitioner holding that it had invested
more than `35/- lakhs on the first call, is approaching this Court in
the subject petition, shouting arbitrariness on the part of the 2nd
respondent in rejecting empanelment of the petitioner on the
second call, on trivial reasons.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri C.K.Nandakumar
representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
rejection of the petitioner's bid in the second call, notwithstanding
the fact that its empanelment was successful in the first call, is
arbitrary. There was no difference between the first call and the
second call. The only reason that was made known to the petitioner
was that, the effective date of the fixed deposit receipt had
commenced from 23-02-2023 which was pursuant to the first call
and the fixed deposit receipt was valid only for four years as on the
date of its issuance. The conditions in the second call stipulated 5
years validity. The learned senior counsel submits that in terms of
the clause of empanelment notification the auto-renewal of one
year came about and thereby it was valid up to 5 years i.e., up to
23-02-2029.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate
would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that, as per
the tender document a performance guarantee in the form of bank
guarantee or demand draft for `25/- lakhs was to be furnished by
the manufacturer for the period of empanelment issued by a
Nationalized Bank only. The period of empanelment was 5 years.
The fixed deposit receipt issued was valid up to 23-02-2028. The
empanelment notification was on 24-01-2024. Therefore, it ought
to have been up to 2029. Above this, the learned Additional
Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has an
alternative remedy of filing an appeal against rejection of its
empanelment under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in
Public Procurements Act, 1999.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The subject petition was finally heard and disposed of by
an order dated 21-03-2024 on the submission made by the learned
Additional Government Advocate representing the
respondents/State that if a fresh fixed deposit receipt would be
produced, empanelment could be considered. The matter was
moved again on the score that by the time the order was passed,
the last date for empanelment was over and the matter had to be
considered on its merits. By consent of both parties, the earlier
order was recalled and the matter was reheard.
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner is in the business of manufacturing GPS based vehicle
tracking devices and is said to be in the domain for the last nine
years. The issue in the lis would commence from empanelment
notification issued by the 2nd respondent seeking to empanel
eligible persons on expression of their interest for taking the tender
process further. The Government of Karnataka in the Department of
Transport issues a notification calling for expression of interest for
empanelment of manufacturers for supply of AIS 140 certified
vehicle location tracking devices with emergency button. The
petitioner participates in the empanelment process, emerges
successful and is empanelled. As necessary under the clauses of
empanelment, the petitioner furnished a fixed deposit receipt of
Punjab and Sind Bank which was dated 23-02-2023 and had a
validity of five years and the maturity date being 23-02-2028. This
was strictly in consonance with the conditions of empanelment that
was made. The petitioner emerges successful in the empanelment
process and in the light of this empanelment the petitioner takes
certain steps towards placing purchase orders to the device for
installation, though no formal tender notice was issued.
11. After the empanelment of the petitioner, a communication
is made by the 2nd respondent on 17-01-2024, recalling the
empanelment process itself. I deem it appropriate to notice
recalling of the first call of empanelment. The communication dated
17-01-2024 reads as follows:
"Pre-Qualification Tender has been recalled from TD
Department.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 05:46 PM GMT+5:30
Dear Supplier/Contractor,
The following Tender Number:CT/RGN1/PR848/22-23
Has Been Recalled for the Following Reason: Under Evaluation
and your bid got rejected because tender has been recalled.
eProcurement Cell
www.eproc.karnataka.gov.in.
NOTE: This mail box is not monitored, hence please do
not respond to this mail id. In case of any issues/queries please
contact [email protected]; +91 80 46010000 +91 80
68948777".
What is indicative in the aforesaid communication is that the
petitioner's bid is rejected for empanelment; the reason being
tender recalled. No other reason was forthcoming. The very next
day comes the second call of empanelment. Certain clauses of
second call of empanelment are germane to be noticed. They read
as follows:
"S.No. Particulars Details
1 Name of Department Transport Department, Government
of Karnataka
... .... ....
4 Name of Empanelment Empanelment of Manufacturers for
AIS 140 Certified Vehicle Location
Tracking (VLT) Devices with
Emergency Buttons for Specified
Vehicles, in Karnataka 2nd Call.
5 Date of
Commencement of
Download of From 18.01.2024
Empanelment
Document
6 Date and Time of Pre- Date: 24.01.2024
Bid Meeting Time: at 12:00 PM
7 Last Date and Time for Date:02.02.2024
uploading of proposals Time: up to 5:30PM
Empanelment
Document in e-
Procurement portal
8 Date and Time of Date:03.02.2024
Online Opening of Bids
9 Date and Time of
Submission of Original
Demand Draft and
Date:02.02.2024
Bank Guarantee / Fixed
Time: upto 05:30PM"
Deposit Receipt leaned
to Transport
Department, GoK
The last date for uploading of documents was 02-02-2024 and
opening of bids was on 03-02-2024. The clauses that are germane
to be noticed are clauses 6 and 7, relevant portion of which read as
follows:
"6. Submission of Empanelment Documents
The response prepared by the Manufacturer shall
comprise the following minimum required documentation
which must be uploaded in the e-procurement portal as
follows:
6.1. Copy of Device Registration fee in the form of a Demand
Draft for INR 15,000/- (Indian National Rupees Fifteen
Thousand Only) at the time of submission of bid. The
Original Demand Draft should be submitted in the Office
of the Commissioner on or before the date and time
specified in the Empanelment Schedule.
6.2. Copy of Performance Guarantee in the form of Bank
Guarantee / Demand Draft / Fixed Deposited
Receipt Leaned to Transport Department, GoK for
INR 25,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Twenty-
Five Lakhs Only) at the time of submission of bid.
The original Bank Guarantee / Demand Draft /
Fixed Deposited Receipt Leaned to Transport
Department, GoK should be submitted in the Office
of the Commissioner on or before the date and time
specified in the Empanelment Schedule.
6.3. Documentary evidence supporting the eligibility criteria as
per Section 3 of this Empanelment.
6.4. Self-Attested Copy of GST Registration Certificates issued
by the concerned authorities is to be uploaded.."
.... .... ....
7. Evaluation of Applications
7.1. The Transport Department shall verify and confirm the
receipt of Device Registration Fee, as well as Performance
Guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee
("PBG")/Demand Draft ("DD") / Fixed Deposit Receipt
("FDR") for all Manufacturers who have uploaded the copy
of the PBG/DD/FDR as part of their applications on the
e-procurement portal.
7.2 The Transport Department shall evaluate and determine
whether each Bid Response of the Manufacturer:
7.2.1. Meets the evaluation criteria as per Section 3 of
the Empanelment Document for them to
qualified and become eligible to complete the
empanelment process for testing of VLT devices
for compliance of specifications.
7.2.2 The Transport Department reserves the right to
only verify the statements, information and
documents submitted by the Manufacturer in
the e-procurement portal as part of their Bid
response.
7.2.3. If a Bid response is not substantially complete,
it shall be out rightly rejected by the Transport
Department.
7.3. No Applicant shall contact the Authority on any matter
related to this Empanelment, from the time of application
opening to the time till the manufacturers are empaneled.
If the applicant wishes to bring any additional information
to the notice of authority they should do so in writing via
e-mail only.
74. After the evaluation under this Empanelment Process, the
decision of the Transport Department shall be final and
binding. The Transport Department shall not provide any
clarification and/or reasons for rejection of manufacturers
if they do not meet the eligibility criteria.
7.5. The selected manufacturers and their approved models
will be published on Transport Department website or as
desired.
7.6. Transport Department may conduct site inspections and
validate the facilities declared by the manufacturers
where the VLT devices are being manufactured and/or
distributed under this Empanelment from time to time."
(Emphasis added)
Clause 6.2 mandates that a copy of performance guarantee in the
form of bank guarantee/demand draft/fixed deposit receipt for
`25/- lakhs should be made at the time of submission of the bid,
which should be valid throughout the period of empanelment and
the empanelment was for a period of five years.
12. What the petitioner would do while submitting its bid
pursuant to second call is that, it would not take a fresh receipt of
fixed deposit or any fresh performance bank guarantee. It appends
the same fixed deposit receipt that it had submitted during the first
call. The said deposit receipt was valid for a period of four years. It
was not for a period of five years, if the date is taken from the date
it submitted to the bid for empanelment on 25-01-2024. The fixed
deposit receipt would mature admittedly on 23-02-2028. Therefore,
it was valid only for a period of four years from the date of
submission of bid for the second call. The reason for rejection is
that its performance bank guarantee did not have the maturity of
five years. The petitioner then rushes to the Bank and gets an
auto-renewal mandate for a period of one year. Then the petitioner
seeks to submit a representation that its bid should be accepted in
the light of the auto-renewal. Nonetheless it comes to be rejected.
The rejection is called in question in the subject petition.
13. The issue is not the cancellation of the first call, as the
petitioner after the first call was recalled has participated in the
second call. Therefore, challenge to the first call after having
participated in the second call would not be maintainable. The
submission to that effect would not be entertainable. Therefore, the
issue revolves around the second call. The petitioner has fulfilled
all the nuisances of empanelment pursuant to second call, except
submission of performance bank guarantee for a valid period.
Therefore, the fault does not lie with the respondent or the
respondent cannot be hauled up for any arbitrary action. It is the
petitioner who submits the same fixed deposit receipt that was
appended to the first call empanelment application is to be blamed.
Since the validity was to be for five years, the petitioner ought to
have been diligent in submitting the document of performance
guarantee, which would be valid for five years.
14. By the time the subject petition was disposed of on the
first occasion, the last date for empanelment was over. The same
situation continues today. The examination is whether this Court
would enter into conditions of contract tinkering and direct
acceptance of the bid of the petitioner. The answer would be an
unequivocal and emphatic 'no'. If the petitioner had submitted five
years maturity performance guarantee, it would not have resulted
in rejection of its bid. Even the auto-renewal for the performance
guarantee of the petitioner reaches the 2nd respondent after the last
date for submission of bid. It reached the respondents on
17-02-2024 and the last date for submission of the bid was
02-02-2024. Therefore, the rejection, notwithstanding plethora of
correspondences between the petitioner and the respondents,
would not lead to entertainment of the contention that the action is
arbitrary. It is a settled principle of law that this Court would not
enter into the conditions of contract unless those conditions are
palpably or demonstrably arbitrary. So goes with the action of the
respondents.
15. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of TATA MOTORS LIMITED v. BRIHAN
MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING
(BEST) AND OTHERS1 wherein the Apex Court has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
49. It is not in dispute that the first and the foremost
requirement of the Tender was the prescribed operating range
of the single decker buses which would operate for around and
average of 200 Kms in a single charge in "actual conditions"
with 80% SoC without any interruption. Then materials on
record would indicate that the TATA Motors in its bid deviated
from this requirement and had informed BEST that it could carry
the operating range in the "standard test conditions" which was
not in accordance with the Tender conditions. The High Court
has rightly observed in its impugned judgment that the bid of
the TATA Motors failed to comply with the said clause. TATA
Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of the
Tender. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that it is
only TATA Motors who deviated from the condition referred to
above. However, we are of the view that the High Court having
once declared TATA Motors as "non-responsive" and having
stood disqualified from the Tender process should not have
entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST
to declare EVEY as the eligible bidder. We are saying so because
the High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in public
interest. The High Court looked into a petition filed by a party
trying to assert its own rights. As held by this Court in Raunaq
International Ltd. (supra), that grant of judicial relief at the
instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria is
something which could be termed as misplaced. In Raunaq
International Ltd. (supra), this Court observed as under:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 671
"27. In the present case, however, the relaxation
was permissible under the terms of the tender. The
relaxation which the Board has granted to M/s. Raunaq
International Ltd. is on valid principles looking to the
expertise of the tenderer and his past experience although it
does not exactly tally with the prescribed criteria. What is
more relevant, M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. who have
challenged this award of tender themselves do not
fulfil the requisite criteria. They do not possess the
prescribed experience qualification. Therefore, any
judicial relief at the instance of a party which does
not fulfil the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced.
Even if the criteria can be relaxed both for M/s. Raunaq
International Ltd. and M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., it is
clear that the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. is
lower and it is on this ground that the Board has accepted
the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. We fail to see
how the award of tender can be stayed at the instance of a
party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria itself and
whose offer is higher than the offer which has been
accepted. It is also obvious that by stopping the
performance of the contract so awarded, there is a major
detriment to the public because the construction of two
thermal power units, each of 210 MW, is held up on account
of this dispute. Shortages of power have become notorious.
They also seriously affect industrial development and the
resulting job opportunities for a large number of people. In
the present case, there is no overwhelming public interest in
stopping the project. There is no allegation whatsoever of
any mala fides or collateral reasons for granting the
contract to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. We take notice of the fact that Annexure Y was
originally required to be submitted by the "Successful Bidder"
after the evaluation of the bid and the same did not figure in the
list of documents and annexures to be included in the technical
submissions, as provided under Clause 5.1.1 of Schedule II of
the Tender. Further the format provided for Annexure Y in the
Tender documents in its heading states that the "Successful
Bidders shall upload a Letter of Undertaking on their letter head
as below". Therefore, we are of the view that the restriction on
revision of documents under Clause 16 of Schedule I, which
states, "No addition/correction, submission of documents will be
allowed after opening of technical bid," is only limited to the
documents necessary to be included in the technical bid and
would not be applicable to any such document which does not
form a part of the technical bid."
The Apex Court holds that tenderers who challenge the tender
process but do not themselves fulfill the requisite criteria prescribed
in the tender document cannot be granted any relief.
16. A Division Bench of the High Court Delhi, while answering
a faulty EMD or no EMD furnished by a tenderer in terms of the
tender document, held that the tenderer who was at fault in
himself, cannot challenge the tender process. The Division Bench in
the case of M/s. S.B. TRANSPORT COMPANY v. CONTAINER
CORPORAITON OF INDIA2 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
27. With regard to the decision of this court in Pes
Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ms. Acharya submitted that that
was also a case where the facts were entirely different from the
present case. In that case what had happened was that the bid
submission date was being changed from time to time as a
result of which the petitioner therein had to alter the validity
dates of the bank guarantee which was to be submitted in lieu
of the EMD. After the 9th change in the bid submission date, the
petitioner therein had furnished the bank guarantee whose
validity was short by 7 days. It was not a case where no EMD
had been furnished at all and in any event in that case
immediately after submission of the EMD which was short by 7
2015 SCC OnLine Del 11919
days, the said error was immediately rectified even prior to the
scrutiny, evaluation and consideration of the bid of the various
bidders. It is in those circumstance and, particularly, in view of
clause 28 of the tender conditions therein, that the Division
Bench held that the deviation was not a material deviation of an
essential condition. It was submitted that in the present case
the requirement of furnishing the EMD was an essential
condition which had not been complied with by T.N. Singh and,
therefore, there was nothing wrong in the cancellation by
CONCOR.
28. Having considered the facts of the case and the
arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, in
our view, the requirement of submitting the EMD was an
essential condition of the tender. This is clearly discernible from
the mandatory language used in the Instruction to Tenderers as
also in the tender conditions. We have already pointed out
clause 5 of Chapter 1 of the tender conditions which clearly
stipulated that if at any stage during the evaluation of the
technical bid, the EMD was found to be invalid, the respective
bidder's bid would be summarily rejected. Furthermore, in
clause 2.3 of Chapter 2 of the tender conditions it was
categorically provided that documents submitted without EMD
'will be summarily rejected'. Clause 7 of Chapter 1 of the tender
conditions also stipulates that if the EMD is found invalid at any
stage during the evaluation of the e-bid, the respective bidder's
bid would be summarily rejected. All these stipulations have
been provided without any relaxation or any other condition
which would enable us to take a view that the requirement of
furnishing the EMD was not an essential condition of the tender.
Therefore, this much is clear that the requirement of furnishing
the EMD was an essential condition of the tender. It is also an
admitted position that T.N. Singh had not furnished the EMD on
the ground that it had an MSME registration. We have also
noted the submission made by the learned counsel for CONCOR
that this was an online bidding process in which the bidder was
specifically required to indicate as to whether it was exempt as
a micro or small enterprise or whether it was applying under the
general category. T.N. Singh had exercised the option indicating
that it was bidding as a micro/small enterprise. Admittedly, T.N.
Singh was neither. Therefore, T.N. Singh was required to submit
the earnest money deposit which it failed to do. In our view
since the requirement of earnest money deposit was an
essential condition and T.N. Singh had not complied with the
same, he was not eligible to proceed to the next page, that is,
of consideration of pre-qualification bid and/or to the further
stage of consideration of the financial bids. We agree with the
submission made by Ms. Acharya that the decisions in G.J.
Fernandez (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and Pes
Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were on entirely different sets of
facts and circumstances. There is no dispute with the principles
of law laid down in those decisions but the factual matrix of the
present case is entirely distinct and different from those
obtaining in the said cases. It is clear that there can be two
types of conditions - essential and ancillary. If an ancillary
condition is deviated from, then there may be scope for
consideration of a particular bid. But if an essential condition
which does not permitting any deviation, is not complied with,
then the bid is to be rejected summarily and cannot be
considered at all. The consequence of this discussion is that T.N.
Singh was not entitled to proceed to the next stage beyond the
consideration of the EMD and, therefore, there is no question of
T.N. Singh being regarded as the L-1 bidder or the successful
bidder and in that respect the decision of CONCOR in cancelling
the Letter of Intent cannot be faulted.
29. This takes us to the consideration of writ petition filed
on behalf of S.B. Transport Company. In view of our decision
that T.N. Singh was ineligible and that the cancellation of the
Letter of Intent by virtue of the letter dated 21.08.2015 was
valid, the next point for consideration is what is to be done with
regard to the subject tender. In this regard, we feel that the
approach adopted by this court in Inderjit Mehta (supra) could
very well be adopted in the present case also. Since T.N. Singh's
bid was not to be considered at all, the tender process would
have to be considered as if T.N. Singh had not participated in
the same. That being the case, the bid of the S.B. Transport
Company would become L-1. CONCOR would have to be treat
S.B. Transport Company as L-1 and proceed with the tender
process there from. We may also note that Ms. Maninder
Acharya on instructions from Shamal Singh, Proprietor, S.B.
Transport Company and who is present in court also stated that,
so that there is no loss to the public exchequer, they are willing
to match the quote made by T.N. Singh. That being the case
CONCOR shall consider the bid of S.B. Transport Company as L-
1 at the reduced rate equivalent to that which had been offered
by T.N. Singh and to award the contract to S.B. Transport
Company provided that they comply with all other conditions
and formalities."
17. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove, the fault
laid with the petitioner and not with the respondents. Therefore,
there is no merit, warranting entertainment of the petition and
granting the prayers that are sought.
18. In the result, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
