MAHATO AUTOMOBILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Binod Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government.

(2.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for quashing the tender submitted by respondent No. 7 and also for a declaration that the tender decided in favour of respondent No. 7 is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that technical bid of respondent No. 7 was not found worth consideration and was rejected. Thereafter on 5.4.2003 technically selected 32 tenderers were called to be present at the time of opening of price bid. Price bid of 8 tenderers including that of the petitioner were found eligible for dealership/Distributorship. Price bid of the petitioner was the only price bid for dealership for Ranchi, Gumla, Lohardagga and Simdega. Further case of the petitioner is that although technical bid of respondent No. 7 was rejected but the price bid of respondent No. 7 was opened on 3.6.2003 in a most irregular manner and a decision was taken for awarding tender in favour of respondent No. 7.