LARSON AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent No.2, Oil India Limited in seeking to award a contract relating to a Turn-Key Project for Offshore oil exploration in blocks known as L1, L2, L3 and L4 covered by tender No.BEP/ENG/F/ 93/135 to respondent No.3, M/s. Essar Oils Limited on the ground that the said action of the respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary and is in contravention of various terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender read with the various amendments made thereto from time to time. After filing of the aforesaid writ petition, by our order dated 20.2.1995 we issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why Rule Nisi be not issued. On the stay application filed by the petitioners we issued notice for 1.3.1995. Subsequently on 21.3.1995, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of the statement made by counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 we recorded that "in the nature of the case the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 has fairly offered that till the final decision of this case the said respondents would not issue the formal contract in favour of respondent No.3."

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that a tender for Charter Hire of one Self-Propelled Floater and Associated Services for Drilling Offshore Wells on Turn- Key basis was floated by Oil India Limited, respondent No.2 vide tender notice dated 19.7.1993. Para 18 of Section III of the Tender Notice stipulated that the bidder should be an expert and fully qualified as a Drilling Organisation, having a minimum 2 years experience in drilling and completing similar wells on turn-key basis and amongst other things should be capable of providing what is stipulated in the said paragraph for the successful performance of the work covered by the tender. Subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid notice inviting tenders two amendments namely - amendment No.1 and amendment No.2 were issued by respondent No.2 on 1.10.1993 and 6.10.1993 respectively. The said amendments however, do not have any significant bearing on the facts of the present case and accordingly we do not propose to deal with the said amendments extensively herein. However, another amendment namely - amendment No.3 to the notice inviting tender was issued by the Oil India Limited, respondent No. 2 on 3.11.1993. Original paragraph 26.0 of Section No.(iii) of the notice inviting tender stipulated that the offered drilling unit must be in offshore drilling atleast for the last 2 years. In terms of the aforesaid amendments inter alia the stipulation of drilling of one well during the past 2 years to the satisfaction of the operator was waived and the following was substituted:-

(3.) Yet another amendment namely - amendment No.6 was issued on 2.9.1994 in terms of which it was clarified that the customs duty payable, if any, should be included in the lumpsum charges quoted by the bidders. Following the said amendment the bidders including the petitioners and the respondent No.3 submitted their revised bids. Pursuant thereto technical bid was opened on 15.9.1994 and the price bid was opened on 26.10.1994. Meeting of the Steering Committee was held on 23.12.1994 for consideration of the bids submitted by different parties including the petitioners and respondent No.3 and after discussion it was decided to ask for revised price offer in view of clarification received in respect of payment of customs duty. In pursuance of the same the respondent No.2 on 27.12.1994 issued a FAX message to all the bidders asking for revised price of work along the lines contained in the said message. The petitioners, it appears, wrote a letter to respondent No.2 protesting as to reopening of the bid and stating inter alia that the idea was to scuttle the petitioner's lowest bid and to favour the other parties. However, in the said letter the petitioners asked for extension of the revised bids upto 16.1.1995 by one week, so as to enable them to submit their revised bid. On 7.1.1995 a FAX message was issued from respondent No.2 to the petitioners inter alia extending the date for revised price bids upto 16.1.1995 with a further intimation that the bids will be opened on 16.1.1995. The revised price bids submitted by the bidders were opened in the presence of all the bidders. On 17.1.1995, the petitioners wrote a letter to respondent No.2 stating inter alia that the other bidders have not complied with proportionate costs of interlocation move and that the bid of the petitioners would be the lowest. On 16.2.1995 the Steering Committee held its meeting and decided to award the contract in favour of respondent No.3 after taking into account the recommendations made by Oil India Limited, the qualifications set by Oil India Limited, the allegations and the protest made by the petitioners and the response of Oil India Limited in that regard. On 20.2.1995, the respondent No.2 issued the letter of intent to respondent No.3 awarding the contract on Turn-Key project for Offshore Oil Exploration in blocks known as L-1, L-2, L-3 and L-4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions on the part of respondent No.2 in awarding the contract to respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred this writ petition on 20.2.1995, on which date the respondent No.2 issued the Letter of Intent to respondent No.3.