INOX INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE department of Animal Husbandry of Maharashtra State floated a tender for supply of liquid Nitrogen containers for the period 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001. The tender notice was issued on 18-4-2000 and as there was no response to the said tender a fresh notice was issued in May, 2000. The 5th respondent submitted their tender pursuant to the said notice. As per the guidelines framed by the department; if the response to the tender enquiry is poor i. e. less than 3 quotations, the opening of tender shall be extended further, by two weeks, maximum two such extensions can be granted in case of poor response and finally the tender may be opened even with a single quotation. In view of the above guidelines a fresh notice was issued on 29-6-2000. Under that notification time for submission of the tender was upto 2 p. m. on 13-7-2000. Tender were to be opened at 3 p. m. on the same day. Admittedly the petitioners had not submitted the tender either in April or May 2000. According to the petitioners since the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the only suppliers of such containers usually intimation about the fresh call for tender is given by the department to them in such eventuality. However no such intimation was given to them about the 3rd and final call. The petitioners claim that they came to know about the tender notice only on 10th July, 2000 and they immediately prepared the tender and entrusted the tender papers to their officer Mr. More for submitting the same to the Pune office of Animal Husbandry department before 13th July 2000. It is further the case of the petitioners that due to heavy rains Mr. More could not reach Pune and therefore the tender was sent by fax which was received by the department before 2 p. m. on 13-7-2000 and thereafter the tender papers were produced personally by them at 5. 45 p. m. on the same day. The petitioners have alleged that they contacted the Commissioner Animal Husbandry department who promised that the tender form would be accepted only if the tender papers were submitted before office hours on 13-7-2000 i. e. on or before 5. 45 p. m. On that day the tender forms were opened including the fax tender of the respondent No. 5 and according to the petitioners in respect of there items their price was less than the price quoted by respondent No. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the department awarded the contract to respondent No. 5 in respect of all six items inspite of the fact that in respect of three items petitioners tender was lower than the respondent No. 5. The petitioner has therefore preferred this petition for quashing the contract awarded to the respondent No. 5 in respect of three types of containers i. e. 1 litre, 3 litres and 20 litres and award the same to the petitioners.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the original files. It is not disputed before as that the tender form sent by fax is not a valid tender. It is also not disputed that the tender of the petitioners was not submitted in time. It is further seen from the record that the fax tender of the petitioners and the tender of the respondent No. 5 were opened at 3 p. m. The respondent No. 5 objected to the opening of the petitioners tender as it was obviously not a valid tender. Therefore it was decided that the tender committee should stick to the time schedule and tender which is submitted beyond stipulated period should not be accepted. Needless to say that an authority is bound to scrupulously observe the norms laid down in the tender notice and it is not permissible for the authority to travel beyond such stipulated norms. In (Ram Gajadhar Nishad v. State of U. P.), 1990 (II) Supreme Court Cases 486 the Apex Court considered the effect of non compliance of the tender condition before the last date of submission of tender. In that case the mandatory condition of tender notice was filing of solvency certificate and current character certificate from the Collector within the last date of submission of the tender document. The Apex Court held that strict compliance of the tender conditions is a must and non compliance with the same would invalidate the tender. In the present case the tender itself was not submitted before the due date. In the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the Committee was bound to accept the tender of the petitioners. Further a perusal of the record shows that the rates quoted by the petitioners were higher in respect of three items and in respect of the remaining three items petitioners rates were only marginally lower. The contract has already been awarded to the respondent No. 5 and supply has also started. In our opinion this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.