ASHOK TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the present petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation without any self-gain or for gain of any other person, institution/body and further, the petitioner has no motive other than public interest. It is averred that the petitioner is involved in the business of printing. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are also engaged in the business of printing, packaging and other printing related activities. Respondent no.2 is a proprietorship concern in the name of Chandra Prabhu Offset Printing Works under the proprietorship of one Mr. Abhishek Jain and the respondent no.3 is a Private Limited Company in the name of Chandra Prabhu Offset Printing Works Private Limited having Mr. Abhishek Jain as one of its Director. It is averred that both are having same offices and printing press at the same address. It is averred that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been illegally obtaining tenders of the Central Government for the last 5 years. Respondent no.1 Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Govt. of India had invited bids vide its letter dated 14th Oct., 2015 for printing, packaging, dispatch, collection and evaluation of secret and confidential documents on PAN India basis, but the said tender was under the heading "Engaging of an Agency for assisting Directorate General of Training under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship in conducing All-India Trade Test under the aegis of NCVT/CAC". Therefore not clarifying the purpose of the said tender as the heading is not disclosing any job work relating to printing/packaging or translation, binding or any work relating to printing. As the heading of the tender was not disclosing its true purpose, only six companies participated in the bid and out of them respondent no.2 was one of the participant. As per the rules of allotment of bids, certain technical criteria had to be fulfilled. The first criterion was that the company should be registered under the Companies Act. It is averred that the respondent no.2 submitted its bid and for the purpose of scrutiny and eligibility, respondent no.2 in connivance with respondent no.1 submitted the profile of respondent no.3/company to fulfil the criteria. Even thereafter, respondent no.2 was declared as the lowest bidder. When the respondent no.1 was in the process of allotting the tender to respondent no.2, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being no. W.P.(C) 11456/2015 before this Court, but due to some technical reasons, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is averred that the petitioner had sent a letter/representation dated 14th Dec., 2015 to the respondent no.1 requesting to dissolve the said tender, but no action has been taken. Reference has been made that the complaints have also been given to CBI and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Delhi Government, but no action has been taken. The entire process of allotment of tender is void.

(3.) The case of the respondent no.1 in its counter-affidavit being that the title of the tender is correct and only six firms have participated in the process and they all were well versed with the purpose/work of tender. The tender document was notified properly and correctly as per GFR Rules and the tender was uploaded on Central Public Procurement Portal on 14th Oct., 2015 as per the procedure of E-procurement system, Government of India. It is averred that the Tender advertisement was published in Times of India Newspaper from sixteen different locations in the country and the same was available on the DGT website. Respondent no.1 has referred to the letter addressed by the petitioner to Director TTC dated 14th Dec., 2015 and the objection raised by the petitioner has been apprised to the Honourable Minister vide note dated 22nd Dec., 2015. As the application was submitted through e-mail as general letter known as "public grievance", the reply was not necessary to be sent to the person who is not a part of the activity concern". It is averred that the petitioner is habitual for submitting various RTIs and applications to various officers from time to time. Six tenders were received and bids were opened on 5th Nov., 2015 and scrutinized by a Committee of 5 members and out of six only 3 firms were qualified for technical evaluation. These three firms were re-evaluated technically by a Committee of 5 members and all the three obtained above 60% marks and were declared eligible for opening of financial bids. After scrutiny, summary was uploaded on 19th Nov., 2015 and M/s. Chandraprabhu Offset Printing Works Pvt. Limited, respondent no.3 was selected as L-1. It is averred that there is no manipulation at any level.