LAWS(GAU)-2007-3-76

PRITI INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 07, 2007
Priti International Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging submission of invalid tenders by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in respect of a tender notice, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the authority in entertaining their bids.

(2.) The petitioner is a proprietorial firm. In response to the Annexure-1 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), the petitioner responded to the same by submitting its bids. The work involved is collection and compilation of 7 days (24 hours daily) traffic census data in two phases-(i) in June/July 2006 and (ii) in January/February 2007 on designation count stations on National Highways (non-NHDP Sections) in the North eastern States. For a ready reference the NIT is reproduced below: "NOTICE INVITING BIDS Sealed bids are invited from individuals, group of individuals/NGOs/education institutions/Universities/Engineering & other colleges/other professional bodies, for collection and compilation of 7 days (24 hours) traffic census data in two phases (i) June/July of 2006 and (ii) in January/February of 2007 on designated count stations on National Highways (non-NHDP sections) in the North Eastern States. The designated count stations where traffic census is proposed to be carried out are grouped into three packages as detailed below. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_76_LAWS(GAU)3_20071.html</FRM>

(3.) According to the petitioner, although as per clause 3 of the NIT, the detail instruction tobidders, sample tender documents, etc., could be seen at the office of the Regional Office, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Chandmari, Rajgarh Road, Guwahati, but on being approached no such information was furnished. The petitioner submitted its sealed bids for each of the packages and along with the same submitted its proposed list of enumerators and supervisors indicating their qualifications. The sealed bid was submitted on 20.6.2006. For each package the petitioner submitted separate bid contained in sealed envelopes and the envelopes were sealed by utilising lac/wax. As regards the submission of sealed tender as per the NIT, it is the contention of the petitioner that same necessarily requires sealing of the envelopes containing the tender bids with lac/wax for the purpose of fastening. Referring to the purported procedure of sealing of envelopes containing bids being followed in the Central Public Works Department, the petitioner has contended that submission of sealed tender necessarily involves using of stamp.