VINITEC ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WORLD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, Vinitec Electronics Private Limited, seeks quashing of the award of the contract for supply of uninterrupted power supply systems (for short 'UPS systems') to the seventh respondent, Next Generation Business Power Systems Ltd (for short 'NGBPSL'). The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner not being satisfied with the award of the contract to the seventh respondent submitted a complaint to the Operations Adviser, World Bank, on February 4, 1998. Pursuant thereto the World Bank by its letter dated February 9, 1998 sought the comments of the fourth respondent (Syndicate Bank). On receipt of this letter the fourth respondent by its letter dated February 14, 1998 furnished its comments to the World Bank. Thereafter, on March 2, 1998 the Operations Adviser, World Bank, informed the petitioner that its complaint had been to oked into but there was no basis for the same. Thereafter, the fourth respondent by its letter dated March 27, 1998 to the petitioner communicated the reasons for not considering the bid submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the award of the contract in favour of the seventh respondent has filed this writ petition but no relief is being sought in respect of the letter of the fourth respondent dated March 27, 1998.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my earnest consideration to the arguments raised by them. First I will deal with the following submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: (1) The fourth respondent appointed the fifth respondent, National Center for Software Technology (for short 'the NCST'), for the purpose of evaluating the bids though the fifth respondent did not have the competence to undertake the job as it was dealing with software and not with hardware systems, the latter being the category under which the UPS systems fall, (2) The NCST delegated the function entrusted to it and appointed a consultant Shri Bharat Desai to evaluate the bids which it was not competent to do as the NCST did not have the power to further delegate its function assigned by the fourth respondent to an outsider, (3) Shri Bharat Desai was a good friend of a senior executive of the seventh respondent and has showed a bias in favour of the seventh respondent.