RAKESH KAPOOR Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) Petitioner seeks cancellation of allotment of the counter in favour of respondent no.2 which have been allotted in pursuance to the tender dated 2/7/2000 by respondent no.1-Oriental: Insurance .Company Ltd. for organising and managing the insurance, counter for sale of personal accident (aviation Insurance) at Palam and Indira Gandhi International, Airport with the further prayer of quashing the notice dated 2/1/2001 issued by respondent no.l cancelling the contract of the petitioner who was running the aforesaid counters at the respective Delhi Airports since 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 was fully satisfied with the working of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner has been working for the last more than 18 years at these sites and in the meanwhile he has received various appreciation letters from various Secretaries of Government of India and Executives of the subsidiaries as he was also doing for respondent no.1 the job of Public Relation Officer and for discharging his duties and functions, respondent no.1 started paying a sum of Rs.2,000.00 per month to thepetitioner for meeting his out of pocket expenses at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

(3.) Mr.Rajiv Bahl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that on 4/2/2000 respondent no.1 had issued notice for inviting tenders for running the aforesaid counters for sale of Aviation insurance. The petitioner had participated in the said tender and thereafter pursued the matter. However, the said notice- inviting tenders vide advertisement dated 2/7/2000 was cancelled and fresh tenders were invited. Previous tender was cancelled as the same was not in conformity with the procedure adopted by the insurance company in the light of guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission which envisaged two bids i.e. (i)Technical Bid having technical details and (ii) Financial Bid having financial details. It was contended that this was done by respondent no.1 with the sole object of accommodating respondent no.2 as respondent no.2 was the son of Shri O.P.Malhotra, who was the Public Relation Officer at the head office of Insurance Company at New Delhi. However, respondent no.1 extended and renewed the service contract of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid counters at Delhi Airports.To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received a notice dated 2/1/2001 from respondent no.1 that the contract of the petitioner was terminated. It was contended by Mr.Bahl that respondent no.1 was bound to first open the technical bid and thereafter whosoever qualifies, was entitled to have his financial bid open. He has contended that procedural irregularity was committed by respondent no.1 as respondent no.1 did not inform the date and time of opening of the tender as the same was not opened in the presence of petitioner and/or his authorised representative. He has assailed the awarding of work in favour of respondent no.2 on the ground of arbitrariness and bias and contended that procedure adopted for awarding the contract in favour of respondent no.2 was wholly arbitrary unreasonable unfair and unjust.