UNION OF INDIA Vs. EIDER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These are a batch of cases. The 10 LPAs arise-out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.3.1995 in two writ petitions, C.W. 3774/92 and C.W. 924/93. There is one contempt case and again 4 writ petitions of 1996.

(2.) . The question raised in the writ petitions C.W. 3774/922 and C.W. 924/93 was whether the omission to "short-list" the writ petitioner (1st respondent) was arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While 19 others (impleaded as respondents 6 to 24 in the CWP) were short listed by the Union of India for the purpose of enabling them to make their financial bids, the Tender Evaluation Committee introduced additional criteria for eligibility and omitted the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions from the list for not satisfying the fresh "eligibility" conditions so introduced. The learned Single Judge held that the authorities could not, after the tenders were called for, introduce fresh conditions which made certain tenderers basically 'ineligible'. He held that all applicants who satisfied the initial tender conditions for eligibility were to be considered and no fresh conditions could be introduced for purposes of basic eligibility. This was the view of the learned Single Judge. He directed the two writ petitioners. Eider Electronics and Eider Telecommunications, to be shortlisted and partly allowed the two writ petitions.

(3.) . The learned Single Judge,however, did not disturb or quash the second shortlisting of 19 other companies which later led to 15 companies to make financial bids and to get licences. The learned Judge's directions: Before we proceed to go into the facts in detail. We shall mention in what manner, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part, or rather the relief actually granted. He held that, having regard to the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, licences were already issued to 15 out of the 19 applicants for 'pagers' in various cities, he was not willing to disturb their "selection". He would however direct the 'short listing' of the writ petitioners because the petitioners' omission was arbitrary. The relevant part of the judgment, in so far as the relief portion is concerned -reads as follows: