VINAY KUMAR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision of the respondents cancelling the notice inviting tender for a handling contract at Kalamboli Stockyard at Bombay, and in re-inviting bids from tenderers in pursuance of a fresh tender notice. On 14.3.1995 the respondent No.3 issued an advertisement inviting tenders for handling iron and steel material at the stockyard of respondent No.l, Central Marketing Organisation at Kalamboli situated at Bombay. In pursuance of the aforesaid invitation to tender the petitioner submitted his tender. Similarly several others also submitted their tenders. The tenders were evaluated in 2 parts namely - technical evaluation about the experience, ownership of equipments etc. as prescribed in the tender document and price bids.

(2.) On 11.5.1995 the Tender Committee constituted by the respondents evaluated the technical bids. During the aforesaid process out of the total number of 9 tenderers two were rejected on the grounds that they were not having sufficient experience in owning required equipments as prescribed in the tender documents. The Committee recommended that out of the remaining tenderers certain documents in respect of some of the tenderers were to be checked. In pursuance of the said recommendation of the Tender Committee the documents enclosed with the tenders were re- checked and on such re-checking out of 7 tenderers one tenderer got eliminated. Accordingly, the Tender Committee decided to open the price bids of six eligible tenderers who qualified after scrutiny of the technical bids. The terms and conditions in the tender were that out of the several scheduled operations the rates quoted by the tenderers for the following operations namely - unloading, transporting, stacking and delivery would only be considered for the purpose of evaluation. In pursuance of the aforesaid clause namely - clause 8.5 of instructions to tenderers the Tender Committee evaluated the lenders of the six tenderers Uased on only the aforesaid 4 major operations. However, prior to the opening of the bids a letter was issued on or about 3.4.1995 by the respondents amending the terms and conditions of tenders. The said letter was issued only to the tenderers by which a new operation namely - supervision and coordination was added to the schedule of operations and for this new item of operation, the tenderers were asked to quote. However, the said amendment did not indicate as to whether or not the rates quoted by the tenderers for the said item of operation were taken into account for evaluation purposes. The Tender Committee while evaluating the tenders did not take into consideration the supervision and coordination charges. The recommendations of the Tender Committee recommending the petitioner as the lowest tenderer on the basis of the aforesaid 4 elements without taking into consideration the factor of supervision and coordination charges were forwarded and placed before the Regional Manager, who was the competent authority for consideration and approval. The respondent No.4, the Regional Manager, on consideration of the records of the case including the bids and other documents of the tenderers was of the view that the operation of supervision and coordination was an important item qua the Kalamboli Stock-yard in view of its size, volume of work involved and particularly in view of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and other Manual workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act of 1969, and that the said rates quoted for this item of work should be taken into account for evaluation in order that the major operations in handling work could be properly and efficiently done. The competent authority was of the further view that if the rates quoted by the tenderers for this item of operation was taken into account the petitioner firm would cease to be the lowest bidder and became the second lowest bidder thereby materially changing his status. Accordingly, he considered it proper and necessary that fresh open tenders be invited clearly stating that for the new item of supervision and Coordination, the rates quoted by tenderers would also be considered for the evaluation alongwith rates of 4 major operations.

(3.) Submission of Mr. Jaitley, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the decision of the respondents to cancel the bid and to invite fresh tender through a fresh advertisement is unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of the respondents to call for re-tender is highly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner in as much as his competitive rates are now known to the other competitors and thus the petitioner would be placed in an inherent disadvantageous position if re-tenders are called and therefore, the decision is discriminatory and arbitrary. Mr. Jaitley further submits before us that the petitioner had quoted the lowest rates and decision of the respondents to nullify the bids and/or call for re- tenders is against the public interest as the existing contractor would be benefited at the cost of public exchequer/public money. He further submits that the petitioner had even quoted his rates for the additional element namely supervision and coordination for which rate was directed to be quoted by subsequent communication and in view of that there was no reasonable ground to cancel the bid as all other tenderers had also done so and the said informations and rates having been available to the respondents, they could have considered the same instead of taking a decision for cancelling the bids and re-advertising the tender calling for such rates which are already available on record.