DEVANCHAND RAMSARN PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The stand off follows a divergence in perceiving the true import of the option to offer multiple rigs in a public contract for "Charter Hiring of 1 (one) No. 1400 HP (Minimum) Capacity Rig Package for Drilling in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh" under the Oil India Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the OIL). The appellant/Writ petitioner's contention that multiple rigs, if offered, are essentially to carry the same price bid and hence the respondent No. 4's tender being non-responsive was liable to be rejected having been negatived by the learned Single Judge, it is appeal, assailing the judgment and order dated 23/12/2004 passed in WP (C) 8923/2004.

(2.) We have heard Mr, K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. P. Kataki and Mr. N. Barkakoti, Advocates for the OIL and Mr. H. Rahman, learned Sr. CGSC for the Union of India.

(3.) The abbreviated pleaded facts indispensably necessary for disposal of the appeal have to be stated. A Notice Inviting Tender No. OIL/CCO/DRLG/GLOBAL/S4/ 2004 for Charter Hiring of 1 (ONE) No. 14)30 HP (Minimum) Capacity Rig Package For Drilling In Assam and Arunachal Pradesh was floated on behalf of the OIL. A pre-bid conference was held on 24/6/2004 and 25,6/ 2004 in which the representatives of 10 firms including the appellant participated. It being a two-bid tender system, the technical bids of the participating tenderers including the appellant and the respondent No. 4 were opened on 22/7/2004. According to the appellant/ Writ petitioner, it qualified in the technical bid but it transpired that the respondent No. 4 had offered multiple bids and in one of their offers in compliance of sub-clause (mi) of the clause 1.1.1., it submitted along with the unpriced technical bid a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly made with M/s IDM Equipment Ltd. As the appellant/ writ petitioner claimed to have an exclusive tie-up with M/s IDM Equipment Ltd., for supplying rigs to it only, it obtained a clarification to the above effect from the said company and brought it to the notice of the authorities of the OIL contending that on that ground alone, the respondent No. 4 be qualified. As OIL proceeded unheeded to consider the commercial bid of the respondent No. 4 as well, the appellant company by its letter dated 11/10/2004 while reiterating its objection as above also drew the attention of the OIL that the respondent No. 4's bid was non-responsive for having quoted separate prices for the alternate rigs it being impermissible under the terms and conditions of the tender. The objection was reiterated in its letter dated 14/10/2004. The OIL authorities, however, proceeded to open the commercial bids of the respondent No. 4 along with that of the appellant/writ petitioner. The price bids of the two rates offered by respondent No. 4 and of the rig of the writ petitioner/appellant were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_232_GAULT2_2005Html1.htm</FRM>