BAJAJ PROCESS MACHINES PVT LTD Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a private limited company and dealing with manufacturing of machines relating to fruits and vegetables etc. and is having experience of supply of machines to various concerns has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-_

(2.) THE Respondent No.2 as per instructions of respondent No.1 floated a tender for inviting bids, technical and financial for: Amla Processing Plant, Aloe Vera Processing Plant, Herbal Processing Plant and Honey Processing Plant, in the month of May, 2010. Petitioner participated in the tender and deposited earnest money of Rs.2,50,000.00 for supply of machines for all the above said projects. The first NIT was cancelled, thereafter another NIT was issued which was also cancelled and lastly 3rd tender notice was issued as per Annexure-P/3 by which offers were invited till 12.7.2010. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner's tender was lowest for the supply of all the machineries which was not accepted by the respondent without assigning any reason. The technical bid of the petitioner was already accepted and only consideration was for financial bid. The respondent No.2 had not accepted the lowest tender of the petitioner on the ground that the technical and financial bid of the petitioner were not worth of acceptance. As per the case of the petitioner, the financial bid of the petitioner could not have been considered or opened until unless the petitioner was qualified in the technical bid. As per the petitioner, it was duly qualified in technical bid and had offered lowest financial bid which deserves to be accepted, but, the respondents have not accepted the bid arbitrarily, for extraneous consideration which vitiates the entire tender process.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2 have filed joint reply in which it is stated that, the first tender was issued in the month of May 2010 for inviting tender and financial bids for the product of Amla Processing Plant, Aloe Vera Processing Plant and Herbal Processing Plant. In the first tender, the petitioner was only applicant so the respondents had decided to invite fresh application. In the second tender process for all the aforesaid machines the petitioner and respondent No.3 both had participated, but, the second tender was also cancelled by the respondent No.2 as the bid amount quoted by the tenderers were much higher than estimate determined by the respondents so third tender was published for the same machines in which the petitioner and respondent No.3 both have participated.