R K ELECTRONICS Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which arise for adjudication in this petition are:-

(2.) The facts relevant to the decision of the above mentioned questions are that the petitioner submitted tender for supply, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of cable TV network in National Fertilizers Limited, Naya Nangal in pursuance of the notice dated 8.3.1999 issued by the President, Anand Bhawan Club. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were among other tenderer. A committee consisting of the officer-bearers of Anand Bhawan Club (respondent No.2) and the additional members nominated by the General Manager, National Fertilizers Limited examined the tenders submitted by the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4 and others. On the recommendations of the Committee, respondent No.2 awarded contract to respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without opening its tender and without considering the lowest rates offered by it, respondent No.2 awarded contract to respondent No.3 due to extraneous reasons. It has challenged the award of contract to respondent No.3 mainly on the ground, of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and mala fide exercise of power by the authorities of National Fertilizers Limited.

(3.) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that respondent No.2 does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In their written statement, they have averred that respondent No.2 is merely a club formed with an object to provide facilities to its members for recreation, entertainment, sports, games and cultural activities and neither the State Government/Central Government nor the management of the National Fertilizers Limited has got any direct control over its functioning. They have further averred that the membership of the club is open not only to the employees of the National Fertilizers Limited but also to other residents of Naya Nangal and that families of the members of the clubs are also entitled to use the facilities provided by the club. In its written statement, respondent No.2 has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner by stating that it did not comply with the conditions of tender notice and, therefore, the tender submitted by it was not considered.