MUSKAN ASSOCIATES Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and for the last more than 10 years, the petitioner's firm is engaged in the business for supply of various types of electrical and mechanical devises to the respondents and for which various contracts have been previously granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents themselves. The facts as emerged in the instant writ petition as per the pleadings, in particular, is the challenge given to clause 2.2 as contained in the Tender document, which reads as under:

(2.) The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the experience clause which has been incorporated in class-2.2 (A) (i), particularly, in relation to the experience clause which a supplier was supposed to have, to make him eligible in the Bidding process, he should have an experience of atleast seven years. He submits that the said clause has been introduced in the terms of the tender, intentionally so as to eliminate the petitioner from participating in the bidding process which has been done arbitrarily with mala fide intention.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondents had published a tender notice being 19/EE(M)/2016-17, by virtue of the said tender notice the respondents had invited, 'Bids' for the purposes of procurement of "Different Size of Valves for Tiloth Power House", Uttarkashi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said clause 2.2 of the tender notice 19/EE(M)/2016-17 has been arbitrarily incorporated wherein in it is required that the Bidder to have a two years experience, in the Bidding process, so as to make the petitioner ineligible from participating in the bidding process, wherein it is mandatorily requires two years experience with the Bidder to make him eligible to participate in the tender process.