DEV ANAND Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside/quashing of the appointment/selection of M/s. Choudhary Electric, Hajipur, Vaishali (respondent No. 4) as Dealer for post-paid services and Distributor for pre-paid services of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Cellular Mobile Telephone Service as, according to him, respondent No. 4 is not an eligible candidate in terms of the tender documents issued by the respondent-authorities.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, he carries on business in the name and style of "M/s. Aditya Enterprises". In the year 2002, respondent-authorities published a tender notice inviting tender for appointment of Dealer/Distributor for post-paid and pre-paid services of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Cellular Mobile Telephone Services for the district of Hajipur. The petitioner alongwith other submitted tender papers after purchasing the tender documents. According to the petitioner, the sales tax assessment orders and latest sales tax clearance have not been furnished by respondent No. 4 while submitting their tender document, on account of which their tender document ought to have been rejected by the respondents, but their document has been considered and has been awarded higher marks than the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is the lowest bidder among all other candidates so far the weightage on account of commission is concerned and apart from this, he is most suitable candidate and thus, according to him, the action of the respondents in allotting higher marks to respondent No. 4 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. He has further alleged that the tender submitted by respondent No. 4 has been accepted on negotiations whereas the petitioner was not even called upon for the said purpose while making selection and, thus, according to him, the action of the respondent-authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the impugned settlement of respondent No. 4 is bad as they were not eligible for participating in the eligibility bid as per the Instructions and Guidelines to Tenderers contained in Section-II of the Tender Notice, a photo copy whereof has been annexed to the writ petition and is placed at page 32. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 4 did not file document relating to self attested copy of Sales Tax Registration and Latest Sales Tax Clearance from Sales Tax Authority as per the requirement contained in sub-paragraph (iii) of 1.0 of Section II of the Instructions and Guidelines to Tenderer, which was one of the eligibility criteria for submission of tender. He further submitted that even though respondent No. 4 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, yet the settlement has been made with them by negotiations ignoring the claim of others, including the petitioner.