LexM/S GANPATI RV-TALLERES ALEGRIA TRACK PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I [2008] 17 S.C.R. 215 M/S GANPATI RV-TALLERES ALEGRIA TRACK PVT. A ..... LTD. ,,,.. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7168 of 2008) DECEMBER 8, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Tender - Invitation for - · Technical bid of tender in c - question approved and intimation regarding opening of commercial bid conveyed - Subsequent rejection of technical bid - Propriety of- Held: Rejection of duly approved technical ' bid without assigning any reason, is illegal, malicious, arbitrary, irrational and unjustified - Direction to Evaluation D Committee to consider the bid of the tenderer in question "" alongwith other tenderers. Respondent invited tender for 'Thick Web Switches'. As per the tender document, tenderer was required to be E ISO 9001 certified and ROSO approved for 1 in 12 curved switch manufacturers on the date of opening of tender. ·- Tenders were to be opened in two stages i.e. (i) Technical Bid and (ii) Commercial bid. Commercial Bid was to be opened in respect of the tenderers found successful in F 4- the Technical Bid. Appellant, one of the tenderers was 4 intimated by the respondent about the date for opening his commercial bid. He was further intimated twice about postponement of the Commercial bid. Thereafter, respondent intimated the appellant that his tender was G rejected as it did not meet the eligibility criteria. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the rejection of the tender. ~ High Court dismissed the petition accepting the stand of ... the respondent that the appellant !did not meet the eligibility criteria indicated in the tender. Hence, the 215 H D E New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 (1) sec 478, relied on. Case Law Reference: 1995 (1) sec 478 Relied on. Para 6 CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7168 of 2008. From the Judgment and final Order dated 26.05 .. 2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2012 of 2008. F P.S. Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Naresh Bakshi, Sunita Sharma, Amaanpreet Singh Rahi for the G Appellant. · A Sharan, A.S.G., Asha G. Nair, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division H Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed --+· . GANPATI RV-TALLERES ALEGRIA TRACK PVT. v. 217 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] by the appellant. The writ petition was filed challenging the A ~ order dated 7 .3.2008 issued by the respondents by which the appellant was communicated that he had not met the eligibility . criteria of the tender quoted by the respondents and, therefore, its commercial bid will not be considered. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: B On 7 .11.2007 a tender for thick web switches was invited by the Ministry of Railways. The details of the tender items were given in the Schedule of Quantities. As per Clause 2.8 of the c terms and instructions mentioned in the tender document, the tender was to be in two packets systems i.e. (i) Technical Bid · (ii) Commercial Bid, and that the commercial bid will be opened subsequently only for those tenderers who have been found successful in the technical bid as per clause 4.0. D ... As per Clause 4.1.1 of the tender document the tenderer must be ISO 9001 certified, ROSO approved, for 1 in 12 .. curved switch manufacturers on the date of opening of tender . The Executive Director Track (P) Railway Board, Delhi, E vide his letter dated 14.11.2007 sought for various clarifications and document from the appellants. The reply to aforesaid letter ..... was ,given by the appellant along with relevant documents on 22. ~ 1.2007. The appellant pursuant to telephonic conversation on 21.1.2008 submitted a copy of inspection certificate of ROSO and also certified about its composition i.e. joint venture F .~ (in short 'JV') partners. Another representation was made on 31.1.2008. The appellant received a letter dated 7.2.2008 intimating that in terms of para 2.8 the appellant's commercial bid will be opened on 22.2.2008. The respondents vide its letter dated 13.2.08 informed the three of the other bidders whose G technical bids were dis-approved and they were requested to ,.. collect their unopened commercial bids and bid guar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.