J. MITRA AND CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANISATION AND ORS.
LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-270
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 28,2007

J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
National Aids Control Organisation And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MUKUL MUDGAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition challenges the award of tender to M/s Span Diagnostics Ltd. - respondent No. 3, by National Aids Control Organisation 'Respondent No. 1 and M/s Hindustan Latex Ltd. - respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE facts of the case as per the petitioner as as under: (a) The petitioner, M/s J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. have challenged the decision of Respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the bid of Respondent No. 3 contrary to their own guidelines Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as ITB). As per Clause 20.1 of ITB, no bidder was allowed to give an alternate bid. It was also decided in the pre -bid meeting held on the 22nd August 2006 that in case any party made an alternate bid then the bid would be rejected. (b) On 7th September 2006 when the Bids were opened in the presence of the representatives of all the bidders, the petitioner protested against the alternative bid of Respondent No. 3 in violation of the tender terms and was told by the officials that the final decision regarding the alternative bid would be taken later. (c) The petitioner protested against the bid of Respondent No. 3 in writing on 8th September 2006 when the petitioner found out that their bid was the lowest for all the Schedules from 1 to 10. The petitioner sent a reminder to both the Respondents on 25th October 2006 asking them to give a decision on the representation dated 8th September 2006 and to reject the bid of Respondent No. 3 which contained the alternative bid. The petitioner received the Order for only 50 per cent of the quantity in Schedule 2 for which the petitioner's rate and Respondent No. 3's rate was identical. For the remaining schedules, orders were given to Respondent No. 3 contrary to Clause 20.1 of the ITB and the assurance given at the pre -bid meeting held on 22nd August 2006.
(3.) THE main plea raised by Mr. Chandhiok, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is based upon reliance on clause 20.1 of the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as ITB) which reads as follows: 'ITB 20.1 - Alternative bids will not be accepted.' The bid with which we are concerned in the present writ petition is for Schedule I : HIV (Rapid) Kits (6,81,000 tests). Reliance has further been placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on clause 2 of the Invitation For Bids (in short IFB) which reads as follows: 2. Bidders are free to quote for any or more than one schedule but must quote for the full quantity of the schedule(s) offered. Evaluation of bids will be conducted for each schedule separately. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.