DRILLMEC S.P.A, Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Drillmec S.p.A., a Company registered in Italy and working in the area of manufacture and supply of land rigs for the purpose of exploration and development of Oil and Gas, has filed the present petition praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Oil India Limited (in short, "OIL") to settle the tender process initiated vide tender notices Nos.SDG9008P11/07 and SDG7289P13/07 in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and other guidelines formulated and also restraining the respondent OIL from awarding the contract in favour of the respondent No.4, apart from a direction to award the contract in favour of the petitioner by quashing the 430th meeting of the Corporate Business Committee (in short, "CBC") held on 27th December, 2012 in relation to the aforesaid tender notices, contending inter alia that though the petitioner, the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.5 were found to be technically responsive in the technical bids, there is a move to bestow undue benefit to the respondent No.4 by flauting the mandatory guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission, guidelines of the respondent OIL issued in respect of the said tender process and other mandatory provisions of law, despite emergence of the petitioner as the lowest bidder. According to the petitioner, the respondent OIL entered into negotiation with the respondent No.4, whose bid was higher than that of the petitioner, ignoring the lowest bid offered by the petitioner by taking cognizance of unsolicited communications issued by the respondent No.4 challenging the fresh price bid of the petitioner, even without asking for any clarification from the petitioner on the fresh price bid, if they have any doubt on the offer of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that they have never been informed about the grounds, if any, for rejection of their offer and why negotiation has not been done with it, though was the lowest bidder and instead was negotiating with the respondent No.4. Further case of the petitioner is that they, for the first time, came to know about the reasons for rejection of their bids while they have been served with a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent OIL, disclosing the grounds on which the petitioner's bid has been rejected.

(2.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondent OIL as well as the respondent No.4 by filing separate affidavits, basically contending that the writ petition is not maintainable because of suppression of material facts; the petitioner being a company registered in Italy and not a natural person, is not entitled to file writ petition for enforcement of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; the writ petition is not maintainable, the same being supported by an affidavit by a person, who has not been authorized to do so and the petitioner being guilty of the violation of the terms and conditions of the tender is not entitled to the relief claimed.

(3.) The relevant undisputed facts leading to filing of the writ petition may be noticed as under:-