GODREJ SARA LEE LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition No.17267/2006 raising various grievances on the basis of which few reliefs were prayed for. Some of the demands of the petitioner were accepted by the respondent no.1 on the basis of which interim orders were passed and the same was incorporated in the final judgment rendered on 11 th April, 2008. The only question that survived for consideration by the Court on which arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties related to conditions stipulated in the addendum to the tender inquiry/notice for the supply to be made in the year 2007-08 of DEPA 20% spray and DEPA 50% lotion. The Division Bench of this Court vide aforesaid judgment dated 11 th April, 2008 repelled the contention of the petitioner upholding the validity of the said condition namely Transfer of Technology from DRDO as a condition precedent for the manufacture being treated eligible for making the required supply. By this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench.

(2.) Few facts germane for aforesaid controversy may be recapitulated here which can be distilled from the impugned judgment review whereof sought by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a leading manufacturer of hygiene products and mosquito repellents which it sells not only in the open market but even to the country's military and paramilitary forces. In response to a tender inquiry issued by the Directorate General of Supplies and Transport, New Delhi, the petitioner submitted its tender for supply of what is called Diethyl Phenyl Acetaminde (DEPA) in Isopropanol 50% (formulation) and was found to be the lowest tenderer for the same. However, the petitioner was not a registered manufacturer, only 20% of the supplies was reserved for it. This was in keeping with the provisions of para 3(c) of the terms and conditions regulating the supply. . One of the grievances which the petitioner had made in the writ petition was that although 20% of the supplies in terms of the above stipulation had to be allotted to the petitioner, no orders for making the supplies were being placed with it. It is this entitlement of the petitioner to receive the orders to the extent of 20% of the supplies which was agreed to by the respondent and on which statement dated 15 th January, 2008 was made. Therefore this aspect stood redressed.

(3.) Coming to the bone of contention, the conditions stipulated in the Addendum dated 3 rd November, 2006 issued to the tender inquiry/notice, which are in palatable to the petitioner, are as under: -