KLIPOON ASSOCIATES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus in the nature of a direction to the respondents not to accept deliveries and not to proceed with procurement of 12000 Telecommunication towers on the basis of private treaties from respondents 5 to 7 and not to give effect to the work orders issued to respondents 5 to 7 under Annexure 6.

(2.) THE petitioner is an approved supplier of telecommunication towers, poles etc. and is an approved empanelled supplier of respondent No. 2, the Indian Telephone Industries Limited, in short, ITI. In the whole country, there are twenty -three approved suppliers whose prototype of towers stands approved by the telecommunication Department. THE. petitioners claimed to have the necessary infra -structure to supply the goods in issue and writing to supply the goods in question even at a lower price than the one at which the contract in issue has been negotiated in favour of the contesting respondents No. 5 to 7. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and all partners of the petitioner No. 1 are citizens of India and petitioner No. 2 is a partner of petitioner No. 1. THE petitioner No. 1 carries on business of manufactur ing various engineering products required by the department of telecommunication. THE factory of the petitioner is solely depending on the requirement of engineering products by the Department of telecommunication. Any supplier who intends to supply towers to telecommunication Department is required to have his design approved by Structural Engineering Research Cen tre, Madras, which is a Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Centre. THE telecommunication towers are used and procured by the Department of telecommunication, Government of India for installing telecommunication Centre in rural areas. THE telecommunication tower is a highly technical product.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 5 to 7 have filed separate counter affidavits but have adopted a common stands. They have disputed and denied that respondent No. 2 settled the contract either secretly or collusively. According to them, the tender enquiry made by the respondent No. 2 was opened in public. The negotiation was made by respondent No 2 with these respondents because the other tenderers did not turn up. The tender enquiry was, in fact, issued to respondents 5 to 7 and two others in order to avoid prolixity and in the facts and circumstances of the case the newspaper publication was not necessary. The respondent No. 2 the Indian Telephone Industries Limited was under an obligation to supply the towers to the department of telecommunication within a stipulated period of time and respondent No. 2, while issuing the order in favour of respondents 5 to 7 followed the norms set down for the pur chasing the goods. The Department of telecommunication floated a tender by publication in newspaper which was opened on 27th September, 1994 and the rate quoted pursuant to the said tender by the petitioner was Rs. 10,530 for self supporting 15 meters tower which is the self -same item in the present case.