SPORTINA EXIM PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner aggrieved by rejection of technical bid Annexure P-4, dated 22-11-2003 for the contract of 'providing and laying Global Category Synthetic Hockey Surface' has filed this petition.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated in India under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is representative of various international suppliers in India, for supply of material relating to sports and providing assistance in procurement of the business in India by various international companies. Petitioner is also a representative of M/s. Desso DLW Sports Systems, Netherlands, which is engaged in the manufacture and supply of synthetic turf surfaces for installation in sports stadium. The firm M/s. Desso DLW Sports System, Netherland is having ISO Certificate 9001 for process of manufacture of yarn and process of installation thereof. This firm also manufactures and supplies artificial grass.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 acting for an on behalf of respondent No. 1 floated a tender for installation of Synthetic Hockey Surfaces at Central Regional Centre of Sports Authority of India (for short 'sai') at Bhopal. NIT was issued on 6-11-2003. This NIT was issued for 'providing and laying Global Category Synthetic Hockey Surface I/c Dense Bituminous Concrete as under layer with certain specifications'. The aforesaid NIT was called with a special condition that the trade name of the product quoted for, must be written in full and the same must tally exactly what is indicated in the FIH's approval certificate as also in the test report of the FIH accredited laboratory. On 15-11-2003, petitioner representing M/s. Desso DLW, Netherlands submitted its bid documents in respect of the aforesaid tender in sealed envelope. The envelope "b" was containing technical bid alongwith all relevant data, specifications under cover of the letter written on the letter head of M/s. Desso DLW, Netherlands. The technical bid as submitted by petitioner is on record as Annexure P-2. Petitioner also submitted its financial bid in separate sealed envelope, i. e. , envelope "c" and deposited earnest money Rs. 6/- lacs in envelope "a". These envelopes were handed over by the representative of the petitioner before due date and were opened in the presence of petitioner's representative. It is alleged that at the time of opening envelopes "a" and "b" nothing was pointed out against the petitioner. The technical bid in envelope "b" submitted by the petitioner and others were put up before Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. By the aforesaid Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, petitioner's bid was cancelled on the ground that it was not in accordance with the specifications of the respondent and the financial bid was returned to the petitioner on 22-11-2003 by letter (Annexure P-4) alongwith earnest money deposit. The technical bid was cancelled on the ground that the name of product which was mentioned by the petitioner as 'sportilux SL 31/6' while the product which was approved by FIH was "dd Sportilux SL 31/6'. Petitioner's contention is that the aforesaid product was offered on the letter head of M/s. Desso DLW and the product was same which is in the approved list of FIH. The petitioner on rejection of the bid submitted its protest vide letter dated 21-11-2003, Annexure P-3 but no action was taken by the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed this petition, on 22-12-2003.