ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD. versus MAZAGON DOCK LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
MAZAGON DOCK LTD. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Contract: Tender Bid-Award of contract-Challenged by other bidder, 
on the ground of malafides on the part of decision making Authorities-Writ 
Petition dismissed-On appeal, held: High Court dismissed the writ petition C 
at admission stage-Beneficiary of contract not heard-All the parties not 
given opportunity-Also the court did not consider the plea of malafides-
Thus, order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back. 
Appellant is engaged in manufacturing of various technology systems 
and components. Respondent No. 1 invited tender for certain work. Appellant D 
submitted its original techno-commercial and price bids as per the tender 
terms. It also submitted its supplementary price bid. Appellant did not submit 
un-priced price format with the supplementary price bid and as such the 
respondent called upon the appellant to submit new supplementary price bid 
in the format annexed for only increase over the original technical 
specifications though the decision was for increase/decrease over the original E 
TSP. Appellant sought advantages of advancements in technology leading to a 
reduction in price. Appellant submitted the supplementry price bid as per the 
new format. Offer of both appellant and respondent no. 4 was declared to be 
technically accepted. First respondent issued letter of intent to respondent 
no. 4 and placed purchase order on them. It rejected appellant's supplementary F 
price bid as the unpriced price format was not submitted and that it was not 
confirmed in the bid that it was the increase/decrese over the original 
technical specifications. Appellant filed writ petition on the ground that there 
were malafides on the part of the decision making authorities and that the 
first respondent permitted respondent no.4 to alter its original offer nearly 2 
years later in the new format given to the 4th respondent which was different G 
from that furnished to the appellant. Division Bench of the High Court 
dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the 
Court 
505 
H 
A 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
HELD: J.l. The Court has to see as to whether the action of respondent 
No. 1 in permitting respondent No. 4 to include a basic requirement of the 
original offer subsequently without offering any such opportunity to others 
is discriminatory and bias; and that whether the action of respondent no. 1 
in permitting respondent No. 4 to submit supplementary price bid by indicating 
B additions and deletions while at the same time, calling upon the appellant to 
submit supplementary price bid only by indicating increase over original offer 
was not discriminatory, arbitrary and bias. (513-H; 514-A) 
1.2. Perusal of the judgment of the High Court would only to show that 
the High Court has failed to consider the real issues raised by the appellant 
C and proceeded merely on the basis of a reply filed by appellant No. 1 that does 
not address or touch upon such issues as contended by the appellant. 
(514-B-C) 
1.3. It is seen from the order passed by the High Court that the writ 
petition was dismissed at the admission stage. No counter affidavit was filed 
D by the 4th respondent. Respondent no. 4 to whom the approval was granted 
and the letter of intent was given was not heard at all. Counsel for respondents 
1, 2 and 3 alone were heard. Two points were raised principally to challenge 
the award in favour of the 4th respondent by the appellant The first point was 
in respect of variation in terms offered to respondent No. 4 which according 
E to the appellant was a favourable variation. The second submission was that 
the appellant was ready to decrease the price offered earlier. The second 
submission was basically to submit that there are ma/afides on the part of 
decision making authorities. High Court without considering the malafides 
on the part of the decision making authorities dismissed the writ petition 
without considering the rival submissions and the documents filed before it. 
F High court though stated in its order that there was some variation in the 
terms, had not considered the nature of variation at all. [514-C-F) 
1.4. The project in question and the work sought to be undertaken by 
the tender process is one of national importance. Hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.