TECHNOFOUR ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these writ petitions the petitioners challenge the action of the second respondent, Controller of Stores, Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops, in awarding Tender No. COFMOW/HRD/ICB-086/96 for supply of 47 nos. CNC Mill Trainer machines and Tender No. COFMOW/HRD/ICB-O99/96 for supply of 115 nos. CNC Trainer Lathe machines to the third respondent-M/s.Denford Limited.

(2.) The International Development Association and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development advanced loan to the first respondent, Government of India for technical education projects. In this connection, the second respondent invited two tender enquiries - (1) Tender No. SCOFMOW/HRD/ICB/086/96 published on November 11, 1996 for supply of 47 nos. CNC Mill Trainer machines, and (2) Tender No. COFMOW/HRD/ICB-099/96 published on November 30, 1996 for supply of 115 nos. CNC Trainer Lathe machines, and services connected with the machines, namely, supervision of erection and commissioning thereof. The first petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Pune, Maharashtra, and the third respondent, a company incorporated in England and having its agent Machine Tools Aid Bureau at Chennai, submitted their tenders. Besides the first petitioner and the third respondent, various other parties also submitted their bids. The first petitioner claims that it is an established manu- facturer of CNC control machines and it has been making sup- plies of the machines to the various companies including Larsen & Toubro, Sandvik Asia, Telco and for various World Bank assisted projects etc. The first petitioner also claims that it participated at various exhibitions and was awarded various awards for its products.

(3.) While tender No.COFMOW/HRD/ICB-086/96 was opened on January 22, 1997, Tender No. COFMOW/HRD/ICB-O99/96 was opened on February 3, 1997. Thereafter certain clarifica- tions were sought from tenderers including the first peti- tioner. Ultimately the bids of the third respondent were accepted for supply of the above said machines and services connected therewith, namely, supervision of erection and commissioning thereof. The first petitioner and the second petitioner, a shareholder and director thereof, feeling aggrieved of the award of the contracts in favour of the third respondent, have filed the instant petitions.