ALOK KUMAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shri Alok Kumar Das, a resident of Jhanjirmangala, Cuttack, who claims to be a socially spirited man.

(2.) The brief facts are that by an advertisement published in the Oriya daily newspaper in August, 2002, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, 'the B.S.N.L.') invited sealed tenders from reputed organizations having at least two years experience in the sale of fast moving consumer goods (F.M.C.G.) items, electrical goods, I.T. products, computer hardware for appointment of dealers (for post-paid service) on Telecom District basis and distributors (for pre-paid service) on Telephone connection basis for B.S.N.L.'s Cellular Mobile Service. In response to the said advertisement, sixteen organizations submitted tenders for Bolangir Bhawanipatna territory. The tenders of fifteen organizations were rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee nominated by the B.S.N.L. on the ground that they did not satisfy the eligibility conditions laid down in the advertisement. Opposite party No. 4 was the only tenderer found to be eligible by the Tender Evaluation Committee but Rs. 150/- for first activation and 8 per cent as re-charge quoted by opposite party No. 4 in its tender were not accepted and instead, after negotiation with opposite party No. 4, the first activation charge of Rs. 95/- and re-charge of 6.5 per cent were accepted and opposite party No. 4 was selected and the agreement has been executed in favour of opposite party No. 4 Bolangir-Bhawanipatna Telephone District. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with prayer to the Court to quash the entire tender process held for the Bolangir-Bhawanipatna territory and to cancel the agreement/contract in favour of opposite party No. 4 and to direct for fresh tenders in accordance with law.

(3.) The opposite parties have seriously contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this public interest petition. Mr. P. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 2 and 3 and Mr. S. C. Lal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.4 submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Jhanjirmangala in Cuttack town and he is in no way concerned with the Cellular Mobile Service in the Bolangir-Bhawanipatna territory. He is also not a tenderer for distributorship/dealership of the B. S. N. L. for Bolangir-Bhawanipatna territory. The writ petition also does not show the activities of public service undertaken by him in support of his claim that he is a public spirited person. According to Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Lal, the petitioner has been set up by an unsuccessful tenderer for distributorship/dealership of the B. S. N. L. for Bolangir-Bhawanipatna territory and this Court should dismiss the writ petition at the threshold without going into the merits of the writ petition. Mr. Lal cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M. S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala 2000 (7) SCC 552 : (AIR 2000 SC 3266), in which the earlier observation of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar. (1976) 1 SCC 671, that the High Court should do well to reject the petition of a busy body at the threshold itself, has been referred to. According to Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Lal, since the petitioner does not have locus standi to file the present writ petition, the writ petition should be dismissed by this Court as an abuse of the process of the Court.