ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. DTC
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED
DTC And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Manmohan Sarin, J. -
(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition seeks quashing of the decision taken by respondent no. 1 -Delhi Transport Corporation to award the contract of supply of 500 Non A.C. and 125 A.C. Low Floor buses to Tata Motors Ltd -respondent no. 2. Further a writ of mandamus is sought by the petitioner directing respondent no. 1 to award the contract in its favour. Respondent no. 1 -Delhi Transport Corporation and invited bids for the supply of 500 Non A.C. and 125 A.C. Low Floor CNG buses. Global Bid No. DCGM -(MS -1)C&BP/820/2006 was issued vide Bid Invitation Notice dated September, 2006. Petitioner, respondent no. 2 -Tata Motors Ltd and respondent no. 3 -King Long had submitted their bids. Petitioner is a leading manufacturer of commercial vehicles, buses, trucks and special vehicles. Petitioner claims that it has a distinction of having put half a million vehicles on Indian roads. It has the latest ISO/TS corporate certificates. It has obtained certification no. 16949 of July, 2006 which is specific to auto Industry. In other words, it claims impeccable credentials as an auto manufacturer of repute. Petitioner had submitted its tender in response to the global bid. It was found to be responsive and so declared by respondent no. 1 -D.T.C.
(2.) TATA Motors Ltd. -respondent no. 2 herein is also in the business inter alia of manufacture and sale of C.N.G. buses. Petitioner contends that respondent no. 2's bid was ex facie non responsive. In terms of did document, it was liable to be mandatorily and summarily rejected. Petitioner avers that in these circumstances, it is of no consequence that respondent no. 2 is found to be L -1. Respondent no. 3 -King Long has been impleaded as a proforma party inasmuch as it has been declared to be L -3 and petitioner being declared as L -2. Before we consider the specific grounds taken by the petitioner in assailing the award of contract to respondent no. 2, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a prayer in the alternative that if for some reason, court was of the opinion that defects and infirmities in the bid of respondent no. 2 could be condoned, then the award of contract should be split between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. Petitioner was willing to supply at the same rates as quoted by respondent no. 2 -Tata Motors.
(3.) LET us consider the case as set up by the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel submitted that initially DTC had invited bids in November, 2005 for supply of CNG buses. In response to the said bid, petitioner along with others had applied. Petitioner happened to be the lowest bidder. However, respondent no. 1 -DTC for reasons best known to it, annulled the said tender on 12th September, 2006. Petitioner says that the said cancellation and the present action of respondent no. 1 -DTC in awarding the contract to respondent no. 2 -Tata Motors Ltd are manifestation of its bias against the petitioner and the determination to somehow exclude the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.