K.N. HARISH Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL), THE GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL), THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (A ANDM) BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL) AND THE BHARATH SANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this court assailing the tender notification dated 12.04.2012 published in the newspaper as at Annexure -A to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for appropriate directions to the respondents in the instant petition. The petitioner is an enlisted Contractor of the respondents. In that regard, in respect of the tender notification at Annexure -A for providing house keeping and upkeep services of various offices/BTS sites and Telephone Exchanges, the petitioner had responded. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner is also stated to have deposited a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - on 21.03.2012 towards EMD as provided under the notification dated 12.04.2012. Before the completion of the said process, he respondents are stated to have published a fresh tender notification dated 24.02.2012 as at Annexure -B to the petition. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the tender notification at Annexure -B to the petition is before this court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner having responded to the tender notification at Annexure -A was entitled to be considered. It is his case that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer in respect of the same and despite this, the respondents without assigning any reason whatsoever and without providing opportunity to the petitioner have subsequently floated the subsequent tender notification at Annexure -B. It is therefore contended that the right which had accrued to the petitioner to be considered under the notification at Annexure -A has been taken away and therefore the same is not sustainable. It is in that context, the petitioner contends that the notification at Annexure -B should be quashed and the respondents should be directed to proceed further with regard to the process which had been commenced under the notification at Annexure -A to the petition.

(3.) THE petitioner no doubt has filed rejoinder statement explaining the reasons that the earlier default cannot be made a basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner which had been made pursuant to Annexure -B, more particularly in a circumstance when the respondents have accepted the EMD of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - which had been deposited by the petitioner on 21.03.2012.