SONALI BOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chittaranjan Locomotive Works published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) E- Tender inviting applications from the interested tenderer for providing 53 Nos. High Speed (4Mbps SME)) Rail Tel, Rail Wire Connections in Chittaranjan Locomotive works for one year. The approximate value of work was Rs.43,52,034/-. The closing date for submission of the tender document was February 21, 2018 at 13-00 Hrs. The NIT contained elaborate provisions to be fulfilled by the intending tenderer. All documents were to be uploaded on-line by the tenderer as indicated in the NIT. Clause 17 of the said NIT deals with the testimonials required to be uploaded by the tenderer.

(2.) The petitioner no.1 applied on-line and participated in the tender and the rebate quoted by the petitioner was 10% below the approximate value of the tender whereas, the respondent no.6 quoted the rate as provided in the NIT. Although, the application of the petitioner was successfully accepted by the concerned authorities, the petitioner was not favoured with the work order and the application of the respondent no.6 was accepted. The respondent no.6 became the successful bidder in the said tender process. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the rebate clause allowed the petitioner to quote at the rate 10% lower than the tender value and the petitioner being the lowest tenderer ought to have been awarded work order, inasmuch as the petitioner has fulfilled all other technical and financial eligibility conditions prescribed in the NIT.

(3.) It is further contended by the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected in order to favour the respondent no.6. The petitioner expresses her frustration stating that the respondent no.2 has continuously deprived the petitioner from being awarded the tender in connection with the works of the respondent no.2. According to the petitioner, there was no ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for quoting at 10% lower rate, when the tender document itself provided that the tenderer could give rebates on the rates quoted by the tenderer. According to the petitioner, in order to give best services at the minimum price by curtailing a portion of his profit, the amount was quoted by the petitioner with 10% rebate.