ASC CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD. Vs. OIL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. While in the first writ petition, namely, WP(C)/526/2023, a challenge has been made to the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the bid of the petitioner pursuant to an E-Tender dtd. 3/6/2022 floated by the respondent ' Oil India Limited (OIL). The second writ petition, namely, WP(C)/ 1061/2023 is an off-shoot of the first writ petition wherein an order dtd. 9/2/2023 passed by the Independent External Monitors (IEM) has been put to challenge. The IEM is an Internal Grievance Redressal Body before whom the issue of rejection of the bid of the petitioner was raised and was ultimately rejected vide the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2023. It is the validity and legality of the action of the respondent as well as of the order passed by the IEM which are the subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions.

(2.) Before going to the issue which has arisen for consideration, it would be convenient if the basic facts of the cases are narrated.

(3.) An E-Tender No. CDG0477P23 dtd. 3/6/2022 was floated by the respondent no. 1 ' OIL. The petitioner which is a Private Limited Company had participated in the same and according to the petitioner, though there was no requirement of submitting the Memorandum of Association (MoA), the petitioner had submitted the same. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that Clause 5.3 of the tender document which enumerates documents to be submitted along with the bid did not contain MoA. The bid of the petitioner was however rejected vide an order dtd. 12/12/2022 holding the same to be techno-commercially non responsive on the ground that the MoA of the petitioner did not include the services of the tender in question as one of the objects of the petitioner company. It is the case of the petitioner that such rejection was not in accordance with law and the same was informed to the authorities vide E-mails dtd. 14/12/2022 and 26/12/2022. It is the further case of the petitioner that the MoA was amended by a special resolution passed by the shareholders on 1/8/2022 whereby the services in question was included as one of the objects. However, even after that as no positive steps were taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner took recourse to the remedies provided in the tender document and refered the matter to the IEM for adjudication as per Clauses 31.3 and 31.4. Since, no action was forthcoming, as indicated above, the first writ petition was filed being WP(C)/526/2023.