DILIP KUMAR SAHU Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire process of awarding the contract pursuant to tender notice dated 24.5.2003 under Annexure-1 and also for quashing certain conditions stipulated in the said tender notice and for further directions upon the opposite parties to start tender process afresh and for furnishing the petitioner with tender documents and to allow him to drop the tender.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that by tender notice dated 24.5.2003 under Annexure-1 the General Manager, Telecom District, Dhenkanal invited tenders in prescribed form for repair of faulty EPBT and its accessories in the Telecom Sub-Divisions covering the two revenue districts of Dhenkanal and Angul. He said tender notice further stipulated that the bid documents would be available on all working days between 11.00 hours to 17.00 hours from 28.5.2003 to 18.6.2003 and also that the bids would be received upto 1 P.M. of 20.6.2003. It was further stipulated that the bid would be opened at 3 P.M. on 20.6.2003. The price of the bid was fixed at Rs. 520/- and earnest money deposit was Rs. 5000/-. Among the general conditions as set out in the said tender notice, it was, inter alia, stipulated that tender papers would be issued to bonafide firms/individuals having experience of Rupees one lakh transaction during the last three consecutive years upto 30.4.2003 on repairing work and a certificate to this effect from an officer not below the rank of Deputy General Manager, Telecom would be necessary. Petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition of this special condition in the tender notice itself. According to him, this condition was imposed out of mala fide motive and with a view to deny the petitioner and similarly situated others in taking part in the tender bid. Many other things have been alleged in the petition. It is not considered necessary to refer to the details thereof. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner did not have experience of Rupees one lakh transaction during the last consecutive three years upto 30.4.2003 and accordingly, he failed to produce any certificate to this effect from an officer not below the rank of Deputy General Manager, Telecom while submitting papers for supplying him with the bid documents. Despite the aforesaid, petitioner submitted all requisite papers for furnishing him with the bid document on 18.6.2003 itself, yet he was not furnished with the bid documents. In these circumstances after the tender process was completed and work orders were issued to four successful bidders, petitioner has filed this petition in this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the aforesaid prayer as already stated above. Of course in the petition, many other allegations have been made but all those allegations have been stoutly denied by the opposite parties. Those other allegations being highly disputed, we are not referring to them in this judgment except the stipulation of the aforesaid condition regarding the experience of the bidders as stipulated in the tender notice itself. The opposite parties in their affidavit stated that admittedly petitioner did not have requisite experience and therefore, he was not supplied with tender documents. The tender papers were opened on 20.6.2003 as scheduled in the tender notice. The tender evaluation committee submitted its evaluation report on 30.6.2003. After completion of all other formalities, work orders were issued in favour of successful bidders on 3.7.2003. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that as the petitioner failed to satisfy the opposite parties that the petitioner had the requisite experience of Rupees one lakh transaction for the last three years upto 30.4.2003, he was not supplied with the tender documents. Relying upon this fact, opposite parties claimed that they did not commit any irregularities or illegalities in refusing to issue tender papers to the petitioner. It is further stated in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the opposite parties that in all seven contractors dropped their bids after fulfilling all the conditions including qualification and experience as stipulated in the notice inviting tender and after assessment of respective tenders dropped by seven tenderers, the opposite parties awarded the contract to four successful bidders. It is also claimed in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioner having found that he did not possess requisite experience as stipulated in the notice inviting tender, he wanted to take back the documents and the earnest money deposit and same were returned to him on 18.6.2003 itself and therefore the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition that he was advised to wait till 19.6.2003 and tender papers would be supplied to him on 19.6.2003 are utterly false and fabricated stories. In the circumstances of the case as stated above, we find that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification as stipulated in the notice inviting tender. He was therefore, not qualified to obtain the bid documents or to drop the tender. It is not for this Court to dictate as to what should be the qualification or experience of tenders. It is within the power of the opposite parties to stipulate such conditions. It is not for this Court to usurp their power in this regard and therefore, we are further of the view that in the circumstances of the case, no interference is called for as the petition does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever. None of the fundamental or other legal rights of the petitioner have at all been infringed by the action of the opposite parties.

(3.) In these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this writ petition. Parties shall bear their cost.