GODREJ SARA LEE LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a leading manufacturer of hygiene products and mosquito repellents which it sells not only in the open market but even to the country's military and paramilitary forces. In response to a tender inquiry issued by the Directorate General of Supplies and Transport, New Delhi, the petitioner submitted its tender for supply of what is called Diethyl Phenyl Acetaminde" (DEPA) in Isopropanol 50% (formulation) and was found to be the lowest tenderer for the same. Since, however, the petitioner was not a registered manufacturer, only 20% of the supplies was reserved for it. This was in keeping with the provisions of para 3(c) of the terms and conditions regulating the supply which is in the following words :

(2.) ONE of the grievances which the petitioner has made in the present writ petition is that although 20% of the supplies in terms of the above stipulation had to be allotted to the petitioner, no orders for making the supplies were being placed with it. That aspect need not, however, detain us for long keeping in view the statement made by the respondents that a supply order for 20% of the supplies of DEPA 50% formulation shall be placed with the petitioner subject to the product offered by it being sample tested by the appropriate authority. Based on the said statement we had on 15th January, 2008 while reserving pronouncement of orders in the writ petition issued the following directions :

(3.) INSOFAR as the petitioner's grievance regarding the supply of DEPA 20% spray for the year 2006-07 is concerned, it was argued that even when the petitioner was the lowest tenderer, supply order was not placed with it. Although, Mr. Virmani, counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to contend that the respondents had tried to frustrate the interim order of this Court dated 30th November, 2006 by placing repeat orders on respondent No.5 against the tender for the year 2005-06, the said submission was not pursued by him further. The fact of the matter is that on account of orders placed by the Directorate General for DEPA 20% Spray against the contract for the year 2005- 06, the Directorate General has secured sufficient quantities of the said medicine to meet the anticipated requirement for the year 2006-07 also. This implies that the grievance of the petitioner qua the supplies for the year 2006- 07 survives only insofar as 20% of the balance supply of DEPA 50% lotion is concerned which grievance stands redressed by the order already made by this Court on 15th January, 2008.