XO FOOTWEAR PVT LTD Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE MINOR FOREST PRODUCE (TRADING & DEVELOPMENT) COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Cooperative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1") provides footwear to the workforce engaged in collection of forest produce. It is not disputed that Respondent No.1 got the product specifications of footwear designed from Footwear Design & Development Institute at Noida (hereinafter referred to as "FDDI, Noida). Since 2005, tenders have been floated and the specifications have virtually remained unchanged till the last notice inviting tender issued in the year 2015. The main change was that the FDDI, Noida suggested to have durable light weight product and there should be direct moulded PU sole instead of direct injected PVC sole.

(2.) On 28.11.2015, Respondent No.1 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter called 'the NIT'). The bids were invited in two parts, (a) technical bid and (b) financial bid. The bids were to be submitted by 29.12.2015. In terms of the NIT, each bidder was required to submit two pairs of sample of ladies walking chappal with direct moulded PU sole, size 4, 7 and 10. Respondent No. 1 instead of getting the samples tested from FDDI, Noida, got them tested from Respondent No. 2-Footwear Design and Development Institute, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the FDDI, Chennai'). As per the report of FDDI, Chennai, the samples submitted by the Petitioner did not meet the required specifications with regard to thickness of sole (forepart) and sole abrasion. All the samples of the Petitioner were found not to conform to the standards on account of these defects.

(3.) The Petitioner filed the writ petition and the main challenge in the writ petition was that the FDDI, Chennai does not have the necessary equipment, knowhow or manpower to supervise, conduct and test 27 samples of 9 bidders within a short period of 9 days. The samples reached Chennai on 31.12.2015 and the test report was sent on 07.01.2016. It is alleged that the samples could not have been tested properly during this period. It is also alleged that some tests require 7 days and some require additional days and therefore, minimum 9 to 10 days are required for carrying out the tests.