HFCL BEZEQ TELECOM LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff HFCL Bezeq Telecom Limited (HBTL who had submitted tender pursuant to the invitation of tender given by the first defendant, has instituted this suit for a declaration and injunction. The other defendants 2 to 8 are Banks, who had given Bank guarantees on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the only contesting defendant is the first defendant. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Addl. Solicitor General for the first defendant submitted that the suit itself could be disposed of on the materials available on record and they submitted written arguments in the suit. The following issues were framed for trial on the 5th of November, 1996: -

(2.) Before I consider the issues, it is better to notice the facts culminating in the filing of the suit.

(3.) On 16.1.1995 notice inviting tender was issued by the first defendant. The due date fixed was 30.3.1995 by 11 a.m. Opening date was 30.3.1995 at 12 noon. On 31.3.1995 time was extended by the first defendant upto 23.6.1995. On 15.11.1995 the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff (Ex. P.I) that the plaintiff had been ranked as the highest bidder (H-l) in the 8 Service Areas, which are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_317_DLT69_1997Html1.htm</FRM> The letter further states that the Government had desired to restrict the award of license for a maximum of three Service Areas in A & B categories and requested the plaintiff to indicate its choice of three Service Areas in A & B categories. On 21.11.1995 (P.2) the plaintiff exercised its option and informed the categories to the first defendant. The plaintiff made it clear that the contractual covenants should remain the same. The plaintiff expressed his choice for Delhi, Haryana and U.P. (West). By letter dated 21.12.1995 (P.3) the first defendant requested the plaintiff to extend the Bank guarantees upto31.3.1996fornine Service Areas. The plaintiff gave the details of the Bank guarantees given by the plaintiff. On 29.12.1995 (P.5) the plaintiff wrote to the first defendant stating that Bank guarantees had been extended upto 31.3.1996. In paragraph I of the letter it is stated :