TAMA FABRICATION WORKS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel, for the appellant, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) THE material facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(3.) AS the petitioner firm's bid proposals, in respect of Package Nos. 2, 3 and 5, stood rejected by the State respondents, the petitioner firm put to challenge the same by way of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W. P (C) No. 177 (AP)/2007, the grievances of the petitioner firm being, in brief, thus: The petitioner firm was not informed of the ground of rejection of its bid proposals and that it was from a letter issued by the respondent Department to the petitioner firm that the petitioner firm came to know that the bank guarantees, submitted by the petitioner firm, were found to be not acceptable. The defects, if any, in the bank guarantees, were formal in nature and the same did not form part of the essential conditions of tender process. In such circumstances, the bank guarantees ought not to have been rejected. The petitioner firm has been discriminated against other tenderers inasmuch as the other tenerers, whose bank guarantees have been accepted, suffer from more serious defects. Thus, the rejection of the bid proposals of the petitioner firm, in respect of the Package Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which fell under Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, was arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, capricious and suffered from non-application of mind.