VAAMAN TEXPRINT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, DEPARTMENT OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to open his price bid and consider the same in awarding the tender in respect of processing of uniform cloth free supply of Uniform scheme 2015 -2016 (Academic year 2016 -2017) in accordance with law.

(2.) The essential facts which led to the institution the present writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that before opening of the price bid, the inspection team conducted inspection of the manufacturing facility of the petitioner thrice, which was purportedly made to make the petitioner ineligible from getting the contract. In other words, during the first and second inspections, which were conducted on 02.02.2016 and 04.02.2016, the inspection team could not see any deficiency or defect in the processing system of the petitioner. While so, it is crystal clear that a third inspection has been purportedly and purposefully made only to make the petitioner ineligible and to oust them from the purview of the contract. It is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the respondents 1 to 3 to make the petitioner ineligible wholly rests on the report of the third inspection team. Yet another deficiency pointed out by the third inspection team is that there is no Evaporator plant installed in the manufacturing unit of the petitioner. Whereas, in para No. 15 of the counter affidavit dated 20.02.2016, the first respondent stated that the petitioner has not given proper explanation regarding the working condition of the evaporator. Thus, totally contrary statement have been made in the counter affidavits filed before this Court which are against truth. At any rate, non -installation of evaporator is not assigned as a reason for rejecting the tender by the respondents 1 to 3 and it is not at all a ground for rejection of the bid of the petitioner. In any event, even assuming that the petitioner did not provide the requisite infrastructural facility as per the report of the third inspection team, the petitioner ought to have been put on notice and called upon to clarify their position. However, the respondents 1 to 3 have not even served the copy of the third inspection report or called upon the petitioner to explain the shortcomings allegedly pointed out in the third inspection report.