DIVYAJYOTI DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LTD. Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the petitioner No.2 is the authorised signatory and the Area Manager of the petitioner No.1 Company. All the share holders of the petitioner No.1 are citizens of India. As the petitioner No.2 appears to have been simply representing the petitioner No.1, for convenience sake, the petitioner No.1 shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has experience of marketing lotteries run by various State Governments e.g., of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Sikkim, West Bengal, Mizoram and Royal Govt. of Bhutan. It has been asserted by the petitioner that they have got a large network all over India and they are the market leader in the business of the lotteries. The petitioner has claimed that they have got all the necessary infrastructures inclusive of the expensive licenced software for managing the online lotteries and has more than 1500 terminals spread across various States in India. The petitioner has been marketing the Nagaland State Lotteries without any blemish for many years. However, it has been also stated that the petitioner has been incorpo -rated in the year 2011, but its Directors have vast experience in the field of lotteries. The petitioner has challenged the Government approval letter No. FIN/LOT -02/2011, dated 26.06.2012 (Annexure -R/1 to the affidavit -in -opposition filed by the respondent no.5) and the letter of appointment of the distributor of Nagaland State Lotteries under No. DSL/17 -10/2010 -11/2, dated 27.06.2012 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) alongwith the corrigendum dated 28.06.2012 under No. DSL/17 -10/2010 -11/123 (Annexure -10 to the writ petition).

(3.) According to the petitioner, the letter dated 26.06.2012 is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional for the reasons that the respondent No.5, Future Gaming Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. does not fulfil the requirement of clause 6(ii)(k) of the tender documents and has quoted lower rate than the petitioner whereas the respondent No.6 also does not have the eligibility in terms of the tender documents, more particularly, clause 2(iv) and 2(vi) of the tender documents inasmuch as the respondent No.6 has obtained the certificate for commencement of business on 24.01.2012, much later than the last date of submission of bids on 16.01.2012. Apart that, the respondent No.6 did not submit the documents as referred in clause 6 of the tender documents, more particularly clause 6(ii)(c), (k) and (I) of the tender documents as issued by the respondent No.4 for appointment of distributors of Nagaland State Lotteries. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have selected the ineligible candidates in breach of the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.