NILKAMAL LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Kishanganj and the private respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the State is also present. The petitioner has sought a direction from this Court to prevent the authorities of the Municipal Council, Kishanganj from awarding the contract to M/s Supreme Enterprises in the light of Notice Inviting Tender bearing No. 5/2011-12 with respect to two items at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, namely, (1) F.R.P. (Fiber) make Hand Trolly, capacity 200 liters, Wheel 16" with two nos. bearing 8 nos. pipe welded on Rim, Tubeless Tyres of EVA Foam, Fiber thickness (2) HDPE Injection Molded Fiber Garbage Bin of EN/DIN standards with extra window opening at front, of capacity 1100 liters.

(2.) Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender on 13.10.2011 the petitioner and respondent No. 6 apart from others applied for the supply of the six different items mentioned therein. One of the tender conditions was that all the items should be of EN/DIN/ISO 9001:2000 Standard. The petitioner and the respondent No. 6 and another tenderer were declared successful at the technical bid stage and thereafter with respect to item No. 1 the petitioner was the lowest bidder at Rs. 10,010.70 with a warranty of three months and the respondent No. 6 was the second lowest tenderer at Rs. 12,500.00 with a warranty of 24 months. For item No. 2 the respondent No. 6 was the lowest tenderer at Rs. 23,000.00 with a similar warranty of 24 months and the petitioner was at Serial No. 3 having offered a price of Rs. 29,964.00. Thereafter the Tender Committee asked the parties to produce the samples and further claimed to have negotiated the price with all the tenderers and on coming to the conclusion that the sample supplied by respondent No. 6 M/s Supreme Enterprises was of better quality and it having further agreed to reduce the price to Rs. 11,500.00 had awarded the contract to respondent No. 6. With respect to item No. 2 it is claimed that there was a price negotiation and the respondent No. 6 having agreed to offer a lower price of Rs. 21,500.00 the contract was awarded to it for item No. 2 also. The reason for awarding of contract even in item No. 1 is stated to be better quality of material as per the sample of respondent No. 6 as also higher warranty period of 24 months. It may be noted here that no specific minimum warranty period was prescribed in the Tender Notice nor anything was mentioned that any weightage was to be given for the same. There was nothing in the tender notice regarding any negotiation with all the parties.

(3.) It is admitted by all the parties that the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 had produced the certifications which were valid till 8.8.2011 and 23.8.2011 respectively. However, it has come out that both the parties as a matter of fact had proper certifications by different International Certification Authorities which were valid on the date of NIT and the opening of tender.