ESCORTS ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner M/s. Escorts Electricals, a partnership firm of electrical engineers, work as licensed electrical contractors and claim to have specialised in industrial electrification work. The second petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. The petitioners seek to challenge the order Dt. 26th August, 1985, passed by the Collector of Sangli District, cancelling the Administrators Resolution dated 28th May, 1985, accepting the tender of the petitioners for providing Sodium Vapour lamps on some roads in the Sangli city and directing the Municipal Council to accept the tender of respondent No. 5 on certain terms and conditions.

(2.) Tenders for purchase of H.P.S.V. Lamp fittings, manufactured by Philips India Ltd. Genelec Ltd. and three other companies were invited by third respondent, the Sangli Municipal Council by the tender notice published in the Times of India, Dt. 26th March, 1985 and other newspaper. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioners submitted their tender for supply and installation of Philips make H.P.S.V. fittings and installation for aggregate amount of Rs. 14,27,266 on 8th April, 1985, which was the last date for submission of the tenders, enclosing with the said letter a Bank Solvency Certificate for rupees five lacs; details of similar jobs carried out by them and a demand draft for Rs. 30,000/- towards 2% of the tender value as earnest money. Besides the petitioners, six other tenders including the manufacturers M/s. Genelec Ltd. and Philips India Ltd. submitted their tenders which were opened on 9th April, 1985 in the office of the fourth respondent the Jubilee Electric Works, which is the electrical department of the Sangli Municipal Council. The fifth respondent Genelec Ltd., submitted their tender for Rs. 14,18,149/- and paid Rs. 15000/- as earnest deposit.

(3.) The Administrator Sangli Municipal Council accepted the tender of the petitioners, rejecting the tender of the fifth respondent M/s. Genelec Ltd., though the price quoted by them was lower than the price quoted by the petitioners, on the ground that Genelec Ltd. did not pay 2% earnest deposit as per the tender requirement, that they had asked for advance payment of 80% of the price of supplied material, which condition, if accepted, would cast burden of Rs. 66,500/- by way of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of advance payment on the assumption that about six months would be required for completion of the work, and that the life of Philips make lamps offered by the petitioners was 18000 hours as against the life of 15000 hours of the lamps offered by Genelec Ltd. Accordingly, the General Manager of Jubilee Electrical Works, placed the work order on 22nd May, 1985 with the petitioners for Philips, H.P.S.V. fittings and installation. It was stated in the said work order that the tender of the petitioners for total price of Rs. 14,27,266/- was accepted on the terms and conditions of the tender form. The petitioners were called upon to pay security deposit of 2% of the total tender value amounting to Rs. 28,546/- and to enter into a agreement on stamp paper with the fourth respondent. It was also stated in the said letter that the work should be completed within five months from the receipt of the said order and in case of delay, the petitioner will have to pay fine of Rs. 300/- per day. The petitioners were also required to accept the said order. Accordingly, the petitioners by the letter Dt. 28th May, 1986 accepted the said order, enclosing therewith a Demand Draft of Rs. 28,546/- towards the 2% security deposit as required. The fourth respondent accepted the said letter, but did not accept the security deposit on the ground that the proforma of the agreement to be entered into by the petitioners and the fourth respondent was not ready. Thereafter by a telegram Dt. 6th June, 1985, the fourth respondent informed the petitioners to keep the work order pending. The telegram was received by the petitioners on the 8th. It was followed by a letter 6th June, 1985, which was received by the petitioners on the 11th. It appears that the work, order was stayed because fifth respondent Genelec Ltd. had lodged a complaint with the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, and with the Collector Sangli Dist. against the acceptance of the tender of the petitioners. On receipt of the complaint, the Collector sent a report to the Divisional Commissioner on 15th June, 1985 and on receipt of this report, the Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector to hear the concerned contractors and to take suitable decision in the matter. The Collector heard the petitioners and M/s. Genelec Ltd. on 26th July, 1985 and on 26th August, 1985, he passed the impugned order, which, as mentioned above, is the subject matter of the challenge in this petition.