STATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two questions posed for an answer relate to the interpretation of the price bid made by the Petitioner (Arraycom) and the extent of judicial review in the event of a misinterpretation of its bid. We agree with Arraycom that its bid placed a ceiling on the price quoted and that a contrary interpretation by prasar Bharati could invite judicial review.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 (Prasar Bharati) issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)on 20th October, 2006 for the supply of two transmitters of 1000 KW (or 1 MW)each. The bidding was a two-stage process involving a technical bid and a financial bid. There is no dispute that the Petitioner (Arraycom) and Respondent no. 3 (BECIL) were both technically qualified.

(3.) IN respect of the financial bid which was opened on 30th July, 2007, the quotation given by Arraycom was for a sum of Rs. 51. 57 crores and it was stated that: