VEXCEL COMPUTERS Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K.P. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Respondent No. 7-M/s Business Information Process Services, has been allotted work, though it did not furnish security and performance bank guarantee within the time stipulated in the NIT. He relied on Clauses 3.2(b), 3.4. and 3.6. He further submitted that the Central Purchase Committee has come into action only after filing of this writ petition. He relied on, (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., 1979 3 SCC 489 (Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited and Ors., 1993 1 SCC 445), (Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651 (W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2001 2 SCC 451) (B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Ors., 2006 11 SCC 548).

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Board, submitted that it is undisputed that the Respondent No. 7 was the lowest tenderer and therefore, it was thought proper by the Central Purchase Committee to give extension to Respondent No. 7 for complying with the said terms and accordingly, time was extended for about one month within which the said terms were complied. He further submitted that the said clauses simply enabled the Board to annul the Award on the ground of non-performance of the terms of the NIT within time. But the Petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that instead of granting extension offer of the Respondent No. 7, it should have been rejected and the same should have been given to the Petitioner or a fresh tender should have been invited.

(3.) There is no dispute that the Respondent No. 7 was the lowest tenderer. It appears from the said clauses that the failure of the successful bidder to comply with the terms of the NIT constituted sufficient grounds for annulment of the Award and in that event, the Board could make the Award to the next best value bidder or call for new proposals. The aforesaid clauses relied on behalf of the Petitioner are directory in nature and they do not take away the power of the Board to extend the time to comply with the terms within a reasonable time, which in this case, was extended for about one month as it was thought fit in the interest of the Board. The case laws relied on by Mr. Deo, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.