RAILTECH SCHLATTER SYSATEMS Vs. BHILI STTEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or an appropriate write, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the tender being tender No. CE(TK)/ 5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29-03-2003 for package A and IFB No. CE(TK)/ 5(338)B/2003/438 dated 31-03-2003 for package B issued by respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the letter of intent issued in August, 2003 by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 4 and any other further contract/documents executed in its favour as according to the petitioner they have been done illegally, contrary to the terms of the tender. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to issue letter of intent in favour of the petitioner company and thereafter to execute all necessary documents including the contract etc. in respect of the tender.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner is the company duly registered under the laws of the Republic of France and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture and selling of various types of welding equipments including rail welding plants. It is contended that they are the world's foremost manufactures and integrators of welding plants with a very wide experience in manufacturing and supplying Rail Flash Butt Welding Machines along with other finishing equipments to various countries all over the world in the past. It is stated that they are presently engaged in executing orders of same machines to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power in India. It is further contended that the petitioner company is constrained to file this petition as the respondents No. 1 and 2 have illegally and acting in an arbitrary fashion decided to issue letter of intent to respondent No. 4 company and to award a contract for packages A and B contrary to the tender conditions contained in documents IFB No. CE(TK)/5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29-03-2003 for package A and IFB No. CE(TK)/5(338)B/2003/438 dated 31-03-2003 for package B. It is contended that above act is contrary to law and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of respondents No. 1 to 3, who are Government of India functionaries/ enterprises falling within the purview of State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution.

(3.) SHRI Rajeev Datta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2002, the respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an invitation for installation of a world-class rail welding plant at Rail and Structural Mill to meet the demand of the Indian Railways for 240-260 meter long rails for safer and high-speed travel. It is contended that the petitioner company had purchased the tender documents. After purchasing the same, the petitioners submitted their offer on 14/8/2002. The petitioner was the only qualified bidder but unfortunately after detailed technical and commercial negotiations respondents cancelled the tender vide their letter dated 31/3/2003. It is submitted that no reason was assigned for cancellation. It is further submitted that respondents no. 1 and 2 again issued a global tender for the purchase of complete rail welding plant and rail structural mill but by splitting the initial complete line into three parts :