SHIV PRASAD PANDEY Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 16-6-2001 (Annexure P-7), issued by the Divisional Engineer, Planning and Administrative Office of Telecom District Manager, Rewa, the respondent No. 3 herein.

(2.) THE facts as have been exposited are that the petitioner is an experience contractor in cable laying work and he is eligible to get the tender form as per the Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'nit') dated 20-7-2001. The respondent No. 1, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a Government of India undertaking invited tenders from the registered contractors through its competent authority for laying of under ground cable in 100 cm depth, by the NIT, dated 20th July, 2001 which was published in the local newspaper. The said paper publication has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. As per the NIT for four sections tender forms were invited independently and separately. In Clause 5 of the NIT there is a stipulation that the tenderers shall not be permitted to tender if any of his near relative is working as an officer in any capacity in M. P. Telecom Circle and he should submit an affidavit that none of his near relatives is employed in M. P. Telecom Circle at the time of purchase of tender form. The petitioner is eligible to obtain the tender form and hence, he submitted an application to the respondent No. 2, the Telecom District Manager for issuance of tender form to him on 31st July, 2001 which was well within time. As pleaded, he had complied with all the necessary formalities for obtaining the tender form. However, no tender form was issued to him and he was intimated that the affidavit shown by him was not in prescribed format. He was directed to appear in person alongwith the originals to receive the tender form. This was intimated to him by the letter dated 14-7-2001 which was received by him on 16-8-2001. It is averred that the last date of submission of tender form was 13:00 hours on 16-8-2001 and the said communication was received after time was over. It has been submitted that the petitioner was very much present in the office of the respondent No. 2 on 13-8-2001 but the department did not bring to his notice the said fact but he was intimated by the letter sent to him by registered post.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, after receipt of the said letter vide Annexure P-4 he submitted before the respondents that there was no detect in his application and if there was any defect in it he should be afforded an opportunity to convince the competent authority. In spite of such a communication no tender form was issued to him and eventually, he was initiated on 17-8- 2001 that his application for issuance of tender form had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared alongwith originals as desired by the said respondent. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner is eligible to obtain the tender form but the same has not been done. Various other aspects have been stated in the petitioner which need not be stated in detail. However, it is essential to state that the petitioner has challenged the Clauses 4 and 5 of NIT on the ground that they smack of arbitrariness. It is also urged that the said conditions are not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary but also violative of CPWD Mannual. It is also urged that the other persons whose relations are working in the department have been given the tender forms but the petitioner has been discriminated which offends the basic ingredient of the Article 14 of the Constitution.