SUPER ENGINEERE Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners challenge the order of the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Committee dated July 14, 1992 whereby the respondent has imposed a ban on transacting any business with the second petitioner and the action of the respondent in not furnishing the tender documents to the first petitioner in respect of tenders floated on July 15, 1992 for the purchase of Low Tension Air Circuit Breaker panels.

(2.) The first petitioner M/s. Super Engineering is a partnership firm and an authorised stockist of Low Tension Air Circuit Breaker (for short 'LT-ACB') and other equipment manufactured by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The second petitioner, a proprietary concern of the third petitioner, undertakes fabrication of electrical panel Boards and is claimed to be an associate of the first petitioner. The second petitioner had been dealing with the respondent in the past but a ban order dated July 14, 1992 was slapped by the respondent on the former, stopping all business with it. By a notice dated July 15, 1992 the respondent invited tenders for purchase of LT-ACB panels. The notice also laid down the eligibility criteria for participating in the tender. The eligibility criteria reads as under:

(3.) It appears that the second petitioner,the proprietary concern of the third petitioner, did not apply for the tender because of the ban order and also because it was not otherwise qualified to participate in the tender being only a fabricator. The first petitioner, however, considering itself to be fully eligible to participate in the tender applied to the respondent by its letter dated July 20, 1992 for issue of the tender documents. The first petitioner not getting any favourable response from the respondent followed up his application by reminders dated July 24,1992, August 4, 1992 and August 5, 1992. But this was also of no avail. Failing to secure the tender documents and because of the aforesaid ban order the petitioners filed the present writ petition on August 20,1992. In response the respondent in the counter-affidavit has taken the plea that the first petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore the tender documents were not furnished to it. The precise stand in the counter-affidavit is that the first petitioner does not have test certificate of the equipment in its own name. It is, however, not denied that the associate of the first petitioner namely, Jain Motor Garage has the test certificate for the equipment in question from CPRI.