Mahato Automobiles vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard Mr. Binod Pod-dar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government.

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 malafide.

For the purpose of appointment of dealers for post paid service and distributors for pre-paid service of cellular mobile telephone service, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) issued tender notice on 20.8.2002. The petitioner alongwith others including respondent No. 7 submitted tenders which consisted of technical bids and financial bids. On 16.9.2002 technical bid of 113 tenderers including that of the petitioner were opened and scrutinized by the Telecom Regulatory Authority. Out of that 68 tenderers were short-listed and thereafter 32 tenderers including the petitioner were found fit for consideration.

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.

The respondent BSNL and its authorities have filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated that technical bid of 68 tenderers were opened on 16.9.2002. After various deliberations by the Tender Evaluation Committee together with 40 tenderers including the petitioner and respondent No. 7 were short listed for opening of the financial bid. However, according to the Tender Evaluation Committee certain documents were further required to be submitted by all the said 40 short listed tenderers. Accordingly it was decided to send intimation to 40 short listed tenderers for submission of required documents. Accordingly letters were drawn up on 24.3.2003 and were sent to despatch section for dispatching the letters to all the 40 short listed tenderers. But due to mistake on the part of the Despatch section the letters dated 24.3.2003 were despatched only on 31.3.2003. On account of the aforesaid mistake financial bid''of only 30 tenderers out of 40 short listed tenderers were opened on 5.4.2003 and financial bid of balance 10 short listed tenderers could not be opened due to non-submission of required documents. Respondent No. 7 was one of such tenderers who could not submit the required document. Respondent No. 7 and other tenderers made complaint that they had not received the letters dated 24.3.2003 and, therefore, they were prevented from submitting the required documents. On receipt of the complaint verification was made and it was found that due to mistake of the Despatch section the letters were dispatched only on 31.3.2003 and, thereby respondent No. 7 and other complainants were deprived of opportunity of submitting the required documents. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the matter was considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee and it was decided that the left out tenderers should be given opportunity to submit their respective documents and the financial bid of the said left out tenderers should be opened in presentee of the concerned tenderers who were the lowest in respect of the said territory. Accordingly, after due intimation to the petitioner, financial bid of those tenderers including respondent No. 7 was opened and the price offered by respondent No. 7 was found to be lower than the price quoted by the petitioner. Consequently the Tender Evaluation Committee recommended for awarding of dealership for Ranchi territory to respondent No. 7 and the same was accepted by the competent authority.

On 3.9.2003 this matter was heard at length. The contention of Mr. Poddar was that although technical bid of respondent No. 7 was rejected but at the instance of and in connivance with the officers of the respondents, his financial bid was opened and he was awarded distributorship. In order to find out the genuineness of the submission made by Mr. Poddar the entire records was called for and the same was produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Central Government.

I have meticulously examined the entire minutes and the order time to time passed by the Tender Evaluation Committee and the department and perused all the papers contained in the folder. From perusal of the minutes of the proceeding it appears that these documents fully support the contention made by the respondents in the counter affidavit. I do not find any adverse noting in the file which will show that the tender of respondent No. 7 was accepted on extraneous considerations. From the records it appears that the decision taken by the respondents is fair and transparent and not for extraneous reasons. It is well settled that only the decision making process and not the merit of the decision is reviewable by this Court.

For the af9resaid reasons I do not find any merit in this writ application which, is accordingly, dismissed.