Everest Instruments Pvt Ltd ... vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6199 Ker

WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)
                                     1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

   MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER/S:

                EVEREST INSTRUMENTS PVT LTD COMPANY WITH REGISTERED
                OFFICE AT D-902,
                GANESH MERIDIAN,OPP GUJARATH HIGH COURT,
                S.G.HIGHWAY,SOLA,AHMEDABAD,3800060,REPRESENTED BY
                ITS MANAGER ADMINISTRATION E.CHANDRASEKHARAN
                NAIR,S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR,RESIDING AT
                CHANDRAGIRI,EARATHE HOUSE,
                BLOCK ROAD,KANIPPAYYUR,THRISSUR,KERALA-680517.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.V.JOHN MANI
                SHRI.S.JAYANT
                SHRI.VARGHESE SABU
                SMT.GAYATHRI MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY
                DEVELOPMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2         THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO.OPERATIVE MILK
                PRODUCERS UNION LTD,KSHEERA BHAVAN,
                PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685004.

                R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND

OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON 22.02.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)
                                         2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021

The petitioner challenges Clause 22 of Ext.P2 -

special terms and conditions and specification for milk

analyser in Ext.P1 notice inviting tender (NIT),

alleging that the conditions prescribed in the said

clause would disable it from participating in the

tender process.

2. The 2nd respondent invited on-line bids from

reputed manufacturers/authorised dealers, for the

supply, installation, testing and commissioning of FTIR

based Milk Analyser at Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and

Pathanamthitta dairies under NPDD Scheme. The date for

submission of e-tender was from 06.01.2021 to

15.01.2021. The qualification for a tenderer specified

in Clause 22 of Ext.P2 is that the vendor should have

supplied minimum 15 equipment each of the three

preceding years out of which at least 10 each should

have been supplied to any Govt./Co-operative WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

federations in India in a year and apart from that the

vendor must provide proof/certificates towards its

satisfactory performance over at least one year from 10

Govt./Cooperative federations etc.

3. The petitioner claims that the said

specification is contrary to the technical

specifications prescribed by the Ministry of Fisheries,

Animal Husbandry & Dairying in respect of laboratory

equipment for implementation of quality milk programme

under national programme for dairy development,

notified in Ext.P4 letter dated 03.10.2019 and that the

specifications are fixed in such a manner to disable

the petitioner from participating the tender

proceedings and to enable the award of contract to the

M/s.Indifoss Analytical Private Limited. It is stated

that apart from the petitioner, the only authorised

dealer in Milk Analysers all over India, is

M/s.Indifoss Analytical Private Limited. It is stated

that in the year 2020 also the 2nd respondent had

invited tenders for the very same purpose and after the

technical evaluation, the only qualified tenderers were

the petitioner and M/s.Indifoss. Though the petitioner WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

was the L1, the said tender was cancelled as per

Ext.P7 notification dated 24.09.2020, on administrative

and technical reasons. It is stated that there was a

difference of Rs.10 lakhs between the bid of the

petitioner and that of M/s.Indifoss. Though the last

date for submission of tender was initially fixed as

15.01.2021, that has been extended. The Writ Petition

is filed in the said circumstances challenging Clause

22 of Ext.P2 and for a direction to the 2 nd respondent

to invite fresh tender in tune with the specifications

in ExtP4.

4. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement,

producing Annexure R2(d) technical specifications in

the tender notice issued on 20.02.2020 for the very

same equipment, where the the specification in Clause

22 was that the vendor should have at least 4

installations in major dairies/laboratories and should

have demonstrated satisfactory performance of the

equipment to the concerned stake holders. It is stated

that the technical conditions were later modified from

4 installations to a few installations. For the

previous year, the petitioner as well as M/s.Indifoss WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

were found technically qualified. Being the lowest

bidder, the petitioner was invited for a live

demonstration of the equipment. Producing Annexure

R2(e) and (f) minutes dated 17.03.2020, it is stated

that the petitioner had supplied only one machine

previously in India, that too, to a private firm in

Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that no credentials could

be obtained as to the satisfactory operation of the

equipment. After demonstration, the technical

committee, decided to assess the performance of the

equipment of L2 bidder. It is stated that M/s

Ernakulam Regional milk producers union and M/s.Malabar

regional milk producers union had rejected the bid

submitted by the petitioner during the technical

evaluation and the petitioner was informed of the same

accordingly. It was thereafter decided to cancel the

tender. Ext.P1 NIT was issued thereafter. It is stated

that the specifications in Ext.P2 are fixed following

the technical specifications suggested by the Kerala

Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (KCMMF), which

is the apex society of the 2 nd respondent and which is

the implementing agency of the project, in their letter WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

Annexure R2(c) dated 05.08.2019; it is stated that the

impugned specifications are incorporated to see that

the respondent is getting a quality product from a

supplier with a proven track record. It is further

stated that the respondent would not be in a position

to verify the performance of the equipment over a

prolonged period of time, if it had chosen to consider

the installation only for the previous year. It is

stated that the equipment is highly precise and uses

sophisticated technology and that the respondent has to

ensure adequate after sales support; moreover, the

equipment is to be used for analysis of milk and milk

products, adulteration, screening and quality

determination of raw, intermediate and processed milk

including cream, whey, yogurt and ice cream mixes. The

impact on the quality of the milk and milk products

supplied to consumers all over the State depends on the

performance of the equipment. Therefore, adequate

experience in supplying quality equipment and after

sales service has to be ensured, as it would affect

the health and well being of the consumers. It is

further stated that the conditions specified in Ext.P4 WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

are only generic in nature; Government of India had as

per Annexure R2(a) letter dated 29.11.2019, clarified

that Ext.P4 letter was only indicative and that the

State level implementing agencies would be free to

finalise the terms and conditions. It is stated that

the DHAD also had as per Annexure R2(b) email dated

30.12.2020, clarified the same and informed that it is

for the State implementing agencies to take decisions

on the procurement of materials keeping in view the

aspects of quality, cost and timely implementation of

the projects.

5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit

producing Ext.P11 order issued by the Government of

Kerala, referring to CVC guidelines barring acceptance

of single tenders. It is stated that the petitioner

company is the pioneer in FTIR technology having more

than ten years' experience outside India; it extended

its service in India only recently and it could

successfully install the milk analysers across India.

It is stated that as per Ext.P12 reply petitioner had

clarified the defects/short falls noted in Annexure

R2(f) minutes. It is stated that Annexure R2(c) WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

communication does not provide that the bidder should

have installed minimum 15 instruments within the last 3

calendar years, out of which, ten should be to

Government/Co-operative federations. Producing Ext.P13

series of performance certificates received from

various State Co-operative milk producers unions in

various States and Ext.P14 series of certificates from

various developed countries it is stated that the milk

analyser supplied by the petitioner is accepted by all

concerned. It is further stated that M/s. Indifoss was

a competitive bidder in all the tender proceedings

along with the petitioner in various States and the

purchase orders were issued to the petitioner only.

6. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The

learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgments in State of Jharkhand v. CWE-SOMA Consortium

: (2016) 14 SCC 172, Maa Binda Express Carrier v.

North-East Frontier Railway : (2014) 3 SCC 760, etc.

and argued that the tender condition in clause 22

requires interference by this Court. On the other hand,

the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent

relying on the judgments in Michigan Rubber (India) WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

Ltd. v. State of Karnataka : (2012)8 SCC 216, Raunaq

International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd : (1999)

1 SCC 492 and Silppi Constructions Contractors v.

Union of India and others: 2019 (11) SCALE 592 : 2019

KHC 6912, argued that interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is unwarranted in the matter

of specification of technical qualifications in the

tender and what shall be the specifications required

for a tenderer to carry out the work shall be left to

the tender inviting authority. Having considered the

contentions on both sides it is found necessary to have

a look at Ext.P4, as the contention of the petitioner

is that clause 22 of Ext.P2 is in violation of it.

Ext.P4 is a letter issued by the Government of India on

03.10.2019, enclosing the technical specifications

received from NDDB of the equipment mentioned therein

which includes FTIR technology based Milk Analyser

also. It provides for different technical requirements,

minimum performance criteria, etc. of the equipment,

the tests which are required for milk and milk

products, etc. Clause 22 of Ext.P4 letter provides as

follows:

WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

"The vendor should have a few installations in major dairies/laboratories of the country and has demonstrated satisfactory performance of the equipment to the concerned stakeholders."

7. It is relevant to note that in the first NIT

which was issued on 20.02.2020, immediately after the

issuance of Ext.P4 letter, the specifications in clause

22 of Annexure R2(d) was the following:

"The vendor should have at least four installations in major dairies/laboratories of the country and has demonstrated satisfactory performance of the equipment of the concerned stakeholders."

It is stated that `four installations' was modified as

"few installations" later, apparently in tune with

Ext.P4 letter. The contention of the 2nd respondent is

that the new qualifying criteria in Clause 22 of Ext.P2

is stipulated in view of Ext.R2(c) technical

specifications suggested by their implementing agency

viz. Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation

(KCMMF), in Clause J of Annexure R2(c), which read as

follows:

"J. Vendor should have supplied minimum 15 equipment per year in last three calender years, in which minimum 10 instruments should have been supplied to any Govt/Co-operative federations in India in a WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

calender year."

It is pertinent to note that Annexure R2(c) was issued

on 05.08.2019 before Ext.P4 letter of Government of

India was issued on 3.10.2019. When Annexure R2(d) was

issued on 20.02.2020 with specifications in tune with

Ext.P4 letter, Clause J of Annexure R2(c) was

available. Clause 22 of Ext.P2 tender notified in 2021

reads as follows:

"22. The vendor should have supplied minimum 15 equipment per year in last three calender years, in which minimum 10 instruments should have been supplied to any Govt./Cooperative federations in India in a calendar year. The vendor must provide proof/certificates to show the equipment has performed satisfactory over at least one year from 10 Govt./Cooperative federations etc."

In this context it is relevant to note that even in

Annexure R2(C) communication of the implementing

agency, there is no requirement to produce performance

certificates over one year from 10 Govt./Co-operative

federations. From the bids received pursuant to Exts.P1

and P2, the 2nd respondent is very well aware of the

fact that the petitioner started its business in India

only in the year 2020 and that the petitioner would not WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

have supplied the requisite instruments in the last

three calender years as stipulated and to produce

performance certificates for more than one year from

the govt/cooperative federation.

8. Admittedly the petitioner and M/s.Indifoss were

the only two qualified tenderers in the previous tender

when the petitioner was L1. Though the respondents rely

on the Annexure R2(e)and (f) minutes of demonstration,

the petitioner has produced Ext.P12 clarification

furnished to them. It appears that there was no further

consideration based on Ext.P12. The respondents have

explained the sophisticated nature of the instrument

and the public interest involved in testing milk and

milk products, in order to justify the revised

specifications in Ext.P2. It cannot be said that the

Government of India is not concerned about the

importance in analysing the milk and milk products,

while issuing Ext.P4 letter. From Ext.P15 series it can

be seen that the petitioner had been the selected

bidder in the competitive bids between the petitioner

and Indifoss held in various months between February,

2020 and December, 2020 in the States Odisha, Madhya WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Puducherry

and Andhra Pradesh, in the gem platform of the

Government of India/e-procurements systems of the

Government. It is relevant to note Ext.P13 series of

performance certificates issued from various milk

producers societies of those States and Ext.P14 series

of performance certificates issued to the petitioner

from outside India. The standard and quality of the

milk and milk products to be maintained and tested

cannot be different in other States where the

petitioner was the successful bidder.

9. As there is no dispute over the contention of

the petitioner that the only authorised dealers in the

particular milk analyser are the petitioner and

M/s.Indifoss, there is every reason for this Court to

come to a conclusion that the specifications are

tailor-made to suit the other authorised dealer and to

exclude the petitioner from the field. Having regard to

the difference in the financial bid in the previous

tender and the performance certificates produced by the

petitioner pursuant to the bids covered by Ext.P15

series, the alleged public interest in revising the WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

specifications is doubtful.

10. Though it is settled law that the tendering

authority is the best person to specify the qualifying

criteria in accordance with its requirements and also

that judicial review in matters relating to tenders,

tender conditions, contracts and commercial

transactions are very limited and that there cannot be

any objection that specifications over and above the

minimum requirements can be prescribed when public

interest is attempted to be sacrificed in this manner

to keep a particular tenderer away from the venue, this

Court can definitely step in under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin

International Airport Ltd:, (2000) 2 SCC 617, while

cautioning the requirement of judicial restraint in

commercial transactions, including tenders and tender

conditions, the Apex Court has also held that the

State and the instrumentalities under it have the

public duty to be fair to all concerned and are bound

to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid

down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily.

It was held that though its decision is not amenable to WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

judicial review, the court can examine the decision-

making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by

mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. This

position is reiterated time and again. The very same

dicta is laid down in the judgment in CWE-SOMA

Consortium's case relied on by the learned Counsel for

the petitioner. In that case the interference by the

High Court was found unwarranted. It was found that the

State had taken the decision to cancel the tender and

to invite fresh tender due to lack of adequate

competition and it was found that the decision of the

Government was bonafide. It was held that the primary

concern of the court, while exercising judicial review

in the matter of Government contracts, is to see

whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making

process or whether it is vitiated by mala fides,

unreasonableness or arbitrariness.

11. In the judgment in Maa Binda Express Carrier's

case, relied on by Sri. Jayant, it was held that

qualifying criteria in tender notices are not open to

judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or

class of tenderers. Para 9 reads as follows:

"9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See Meerut Development Authority v. Assn. of Management Studies and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.)

Though the 2nd respondent is free to effect modification

in the tender specifications when it issued a fresh NIT

in Ext.P2 and the Govt. of India has informed that the

specifications in Ext.P4 are only generic in nature,

the 2nd respondent can do it only in public interest,

while inviting a subsequent tender

12. In the judgment in Michigan Rubber (India)

Ltd.'s case, relied on by the Standing Counsel, the

Apex Court held as follows in para 23:

"23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:

(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

into consideration the national priorities;

(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;

(c) 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 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;

(d) 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; and

(e) if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.

20. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached'? and

(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?

If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226."

13. In Raunaq International Ltd's case, relied on WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

by the learned Standing Counsel, the Apex Court held

that unless the court is satisfied that there is a

substantial amount of public interest, or the

transaction is entered into mala fide, the court should

not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two

rival tenderers. In Silppi Constructions Contractors'

case (supra) relied on by the learned Standing Counsel,

after a meticulous analysis of a series of judgments on

this issue, the Apex Court reiterated that courts

should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising

their powers of judicial review in contractual or

commercial matters and in contracts involving technical

issues, the courts should be even more reluctant

because the courts do not have the necessary expertise

to adjudicate upon technical issues; the courts must

give "fair play in the joints" to the Government and

public sector undertakings in matters of contract;

Courts must also not interfere where such interference

will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.

However, it was also held that being the guardian of

fundamental rights it is duty of the court to interfere

when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

and bias and that the State and the instrumentalities

under it within the meaning of Art.12 of the

Constitution are bound to act fairly.

14. Though the specifications involved in the

present tender are technical and this Court does not

have the expertise over these matters, when the action

of the tender inviting authority is seen arbitrary

with ulterior motives, this Court can definitely

interfere.

15. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6

SCC 651, the Apex Court, delineated the parameters for

judicial review in contractual matters in para.94 as

follows:

94. The principles deducible from the above are:

(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.

(emphasis supplied)

Interference by this Court in such matters would be

necessary in order to prevent arbitrariness. Though

there can be no question of infringement of Article 14

in a case where the 2nd respondent tries to get the best

person or the best quotation and best instrument in the

interest of public and the right to choose cannot be

considered to be an arbitrary power, if the said power

is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

that power has to be interfered with.

16. The circumstances of this case would indicate

that the condition no.22, is framed in such a manner to

avoid the petitioner in a case where there are only two

dealers to submit their bids.

17. Therefore, it is declared that the

specifications in Clause 22 of Ext.P2 are arbitrary.

The 2nd respondent shall not pursue Ext.P1 notice

inviting tender except after revising clause 22 of

Ext.P2 tender conditions.

The Writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/-

                                              P.V.ASHA

DM                                             JUDGE
 WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE INVITING TENDER ISSUED BY
                     THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2           A TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR MILK ANALYZER SPECIFIED AS PER EXHIBIT P1 TENDER

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ISSUED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1 TENDER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO-4-09/2019-DP ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF FISHERIES,ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRYING DATED 03.10.2019

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2021

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF TENDER EVALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CANCELLATION CORRIGENDUM ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2020

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CORRIGENDUM ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2021

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY PETITIONER AT THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 18.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER ISSUED FROM VARIOUS UNIONS IN INDIA TO PETITIONER'S COMPANY.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.324/2015/FIN ISSUED BY FINANCE (IND &PW-B) DEPARTMENT DT.30.07.15 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF CLARIFICATION REPLY SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.03.2020

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM VARIOUS STATE COOPRATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM DIFFERENT DIARY COOPERATIONS OF WORLD WP(C).No.1707 OF 2021(K)

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF ODISHA STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION

EXHIBIT P15A TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF MADHYA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD

EXHIBIT P15B TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GUJARAT

EXHIBIT P15C TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION

EXHIBIT P15D TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF BHAGIRATHI COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

EXHIBIT P15E TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NADIA, WEST BENGAL

EXHIBIT P15F TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS OF COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT PONLAIT, PUDUCHERRY

EXHIBIT P15G TRU COPY OF BID DETAILS OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

ANNEX.R2A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.29.11.19 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRYING

ANNEX.R2B TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DT.30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRYING

ANNEX.R2C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.05.08.19 ISSUED BY TEH KCMMF

ANNEX.R2D TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OF BID REF.NO.599/TRU/PC/2019

ANNEX.R2E THE MINUTES OF THE DEMONSTRATION DT.17.3.2020

ANNEX.R2F TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE DT.17.03.2020