SUDARSHAN SHARMA Vs. B.S.N.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the tender awarded by the respondents Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in favour of private respondent No. 5 be quashed, the petitioner be declared to be the only eligible bidder and the respondent No. 5 be held to be disqualified.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that for the last many years he has been handling the transportation of telecom stores of the BSNL Store Depot Jassur to various stations. According to the petitioner, the respondents first floated a tender on 6.11.2008 for handling and transportation of telecom stores by Motor Vehicles in November, 2008. One of the conditions of the original document was that the person must produce attested copy of the registration with EPF authorities. According to the petitioner, the private respondent did not fulfil this condition and his tender was bound to be rejected. However, with a view to help the private respondent the BSNL invited fresh bids and modified the terms and conditions of the bid and according to the fresh conditions not those bidders who were registered with the EPF authorities but also those who have applied for registration with the Employees Provident Authority were made eligible. According to Sh.Anup Rattan this modification was made only with a view to help the private respondent. He further contents that the private respondent 'sapplication for registration with the EPF authorities had been rejected by that stage and the tender of the petitioner was rejected on flimsy grounds.

(3.) THE allegations made in the suit are that the private respondent was not eligible for grant of EPF Code by the EPF authorities and therefore he is not eligible. He has also challenged the disqualification of his bid. It is therefore apparent that the cause of actions in the writ petition and civil suit are identical. The Suit was filed on 25.3.2009 and bids were opened on 26.3.2009. Along with the civil suit the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of stay restraining the BSNL for opening the financial bid. This application was dismissed on 26.3.2009. The writ petition was drafted on 26.3.2009 but filed in the Court on 28.3.2009. In the writ petition though a passing reference has been made about the filing of the civil suit, neither the copy of the plaint was attached nor any reference was made to the filing of the application for grant of stay or the dismissal thereof. The petitioner for reasons best known to him chose to initiate legal proceedings before the Civil Court. After having failed to obtain a stay order from the Civil Court he cannot be permitted to file the present writ petition that too without disclosing the factum of his stay application having been dismissed.