M/S D.N. Corporation vs Vikran University And Another

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award of contract to the respondent No.2.

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 University had issued the tender dated 16.4.2018 for providing the gold medal and one of the condition of the NIT was that the bidder should have the hallmark registration license. Further case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not having he hallmark registration license, therefore, he had not participated in the tender process but the respondent No.2 who was also not having the hallmark registration license, has been awarded the contract.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has acted beyond the terms of the NIT by awarding the contract to the respondent No.2, who was not having the hallmark registration license.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that two bids were submitted and none of the bidder was having the hallmark registration license, therefore, time was given to the lowest bidder to obtain it and the contract has been awarded only after the license was obtained.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also supported the said action.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the tender was floated for providing the gold medals for the 23rd convocation event of the respondent No.1 University, which was to be held on 30.6.2018. The tender process was concluded on 23.5.2018. The record further reveals that the two bidders who had submitted the bid, were not having the hallmark registration license and sufficient time was not left with the respondent No.1 University to issue the fresh bid, therefore, the respondent No.2 was given an option to submit the hallmark registration license, which was duly submitted by him before issuance of the work order. The hallmark registration license of the respondent No.2 has been placed on record as Annexure R/3 which was valid from 13.6.2018 to 12.6.2021. The record further reveals that the present petition has been filed on 28.6.2018, whereas the entire process was over prior to that. The documents filed by the respondent No.1 along with the record clearly reveal that the entire process was conducted in fair and transparent manner. The technical breach of accepting tender of bidder who had not submitted the hallmark registration license along with the bid, was on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the respondent No.1 University. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances no fault can be found on the part of the authorities of the respondent No.1 University in awarding the contract to the respondent No.2. So far as the issue of malafides is concerned, the authorities of the respondent No.1 have not been impleaded by name in the present writ petition.

In the aforesaid circumstances no merit is found in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.