B S N L Vs. TELEPHONE CABLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard the parties.

(2.) The appellant, by 'Notice Inviting Tenders' dated 27.3.2001, invited bids for supply of 441 LCKM of different sizes of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled cables ('PIJF cables' for short). The tender procedure (vide Clause 13 of Special Conditions of Contract) required an evaluation of the bids, so as to limit the number of bidders selected for placing orders against the tender, to two-third of the participating and eligible bidders in each group; and the bidders for placement of orders were to be selected from the list of technically and commercially responsive bidders in each group arranged in decreasing order of 'Vendor Rating' starting from the highest. The bidder with the highest Vendor Rating (V-1) was to be considered for placing the order for about 30% of the tendered quantity and the balance quantity was to be distributed among the remaining selected bidders in each group in direct ratio of their Vendor Rating. Thus the quantity for which a purchase order was to be placed by BSNL on a bidder depended upon the 'Vendor Rating' of such a bidder. The first round of litigation

(3.) There were several bidders including the respondent and NICCO Corporation Ltd. BSNL awarded the highest vendor rating (V-1), to NICCO. The respondent claimed that on a proper evaluation of bidders, it should have been given the highest Vendor Rating (V-1) in regard to 10P x 0.5 (UA) size cable instead of NICCO; that if it had been adjudged as V-1, it would have secured a Purchase Order for a quantity of 5.842 LCKM from BSNL; that as NICCO was adjudged as V-1, the appellant treated the respondent as one of the 'other bidders' and consequently placed an order only for a quantity of 0.536 LCKM; and that resulted in a shortfall of 5.306 LCKM in the order placed on it. The respondent therefore filed Writ Petition [C] No. 5808/2001 in the Delhi High Court on 18.9.2001 alleging that BSNL had arbitrarily adjudged NICCO as the person with the highest Vendor Rating thereby pushing it down to the category of 'other bidders' which adversely affected the size of its order. It prayed for the following reliefs: