NSOFT INDIA SERVICE PVT LTD Vs. BESCOM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition two contracts awarded to the second respondent and sought for quashing of the same. The first contract is in respect of spot billing and collection in bescom Sub-Divisions. Second contract refers to maintenance of billing software.

(2.) THE first respondent floated a tender inviting bids for Total Revenue Management of Billing and Collection of BESCOM sub-Divisions in respect of 4 lots. The common qualifying requirements were stipulated for all the Lots. The petitioner was one such bidder and so also the second respondent. Petitioner's bid was not accepted whereas the second respondent's bid was accepted. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, namely three years experience of providing similar services in any electricity supply utility in India. The second respondent contended that they do possess the three years qualification. The first respondent has not categorically stated in the statement of objections that the second respondent do possess the requisite qualification of three years experience. But, they rely on the observations of the appellate authority who has held that the second respondent has three years experience. Therefore, they contend that the petitioner's contention is baseless.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the order passed by the tender accepting authority under Section 16 of the karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements act, 1999 for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Appellate Authority after considering the rival contentions, at Paragraph 4 of the order, dealt with the matter and held, according to R-1 the requirement as stated in the bid document, is only work of similar nature. Since there is no specific definition in the tender document on what constitutes work of similar nature, the decision of the tender inviting authority in determining this was accepted and accordingly it dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner is before this Court.