AZAZ AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he is carrying on proprietorship business of contractor and order supplier under the name and style of M/s. Azaz Ahmed. His firm is enlisted in the 237 Engineer Regiment for financial year 2018-19 and it is also claimed that the petitioner's firm was also a registered vendor in HQ 71 Inf. Div. as "Sadbhavana" vendor and that from time to time, the petitioner had been receiving all intimations and advertisements regarding tenders from Davision Troops Units at his registered e-mail address. However, despite his enlistment, the respondents No. 2 to 5, viz., (a) Commanding Officer, 626 SATA BTY, (b) Commanding Officer, 57 Field Regiment, (c) Commanding Officer, 71 INF. DOU, (d) Commanding Officer, 1851 Light Regiment (respondent No. 5), had not invited or intimated about tenders for any contract work to the petitioner and in this regard, the petitioner has specifically referred to four tenders for which no invitation or intimation was given to him. Hence, by four separate letters dated 09.07.2018, the petitioner had informed the above referred four Commanding Officers that he was enlisted for OP Sadbhavana project 2018-19 under 71 Inf. Division, and that his firm had done OP Sadbhavana work in the last two years and he had requested the said officers to give him offer to participate in e-tendering of OP Sadbhabana. Hence, alleging lack of transparency and violation of the prescribed and rules and procedures, as well as favouring of blue-eyed contractors, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that on denying opportunity to the petitioner to bid in the limited tender process, the tender process is reduced to a farce and the authorities have resorted to pick and choose policy at their respective whims and fancies. It is also submitted that by denying offer to the petitioner, the respondents are denying level playing field to all registered contractors, and in the process, the respondents are not allowing registered contractors an opportunity to offer their best competitive rates. It is further submitted that in guise of "limited tender enquiry", the respondents are giving undue advantage to some limited blue eyed contractors. It is further submitted that the respondents are required to scrupulously follow Rule 162 of the General Financial Rules, which mandates that notice of all tenders must be sent to all registered contractors by registered post and e-mail and must be uploaded in the website to invite more participation and that in any case, the number of suppliers participating in the bidding should be more than three.