FYLFOT INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have challenged the Notice Inviting Tender being T.E. No. S/W-95-96/ 02 dated 2-6-1995 initially scheduled to be opened on 13th July 1995, but rescheduled for opening on lst August, 1995 issued by the 3 Respondent No. 4, the Assistant General (P) under CGM, Telocm Stores, Calcutta.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a company and petitioner No. 2 is its Director. They are engaged in manufacture of PVC Insulated Galvanised M. S. Wires. It is their case that PVC Insulated Galvanised M.S, Wires are manufactured by them exclusively for supply to the Department of Tele-communication which is the only buyer of such materials in the country. On 10-1-1994, the petitioner No. 1 got a Type Approval Certificate from the Quality Assurance Authority which is a wing of the Department of Tele-communication. On 9-5-1995, petitioner No. 1 secured and order for supply of 1000 k.m. of PVC Insulated Galvanised M.S. Wires from the Department of Tele-communication. The older was duly executed to the satisfaction of the Department as would be evident from the Certificate issued by the Quality Assurance Department which inspected the goods manufactured by the petitioners in pursuance of the said order. The petitioners have installed the plant and machinery for manufacturing PVC Insulated Galvanised M.S. Wires with the reasonable expectation of manufacturing and supply the aforesaid products to the Department of Telecommunication. It is the petitioners' case that the Tender Forms on all previous occasions were sold to the manufacturers of such wires at the nominal price of Rs. 200/- and the earnest money payable in respect of each of the Tender Enquiry was the fixed amount of Rs. 5,000/-. But in the impugned Tender Notice for supply of 3000 metric tonnes of PVC Insulated Galvanised M.S. Wires of 2 M. M. dia., the cost bid documents per set has been fixed at Rs. 8,000/- and of the bid security / earnest money deposit at Rs. 20 lacs. According to the petitioners, the cost of the Tender document at Rs. 8,000/- per set and the earnest money amounting to Rs. 20 lacs irrespective of value of the offer are not only unprecedented, but also

(3.) The petitioner's further case is that in the impugned Notice inviting Tender the term of despatch has been described as "F.O.R. destination" without disclosing the destination which is liable to make the offer inflated. Freight for 10 k.m. and freight for 1000 k.m. or more cannot be the same. So long the system was that freight paid used to be reimbursed along with advance payment bill on production of the R/ R. In the new system the Tenderer is left to speculate without knowing for certain as to what would be the destination and corresponding freight. The petitioners allege that the term in question has been framed to reserve upon the respondents unguided power to treat the Tenderers in accordance with the sweet will of the respondents once the tender is accepted 4 and this may open the floodgate for unreasonable discrimination. The respondents being the State such acts as have been complained of are violative of Art. 19(1)(g) and Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.