- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The petitioner has challenged the grant of annual maintenance contract of Laproscope/ Laprocator sets to the respondent No. 6. The impugned order dated 8. 2. 2007 granting the above maintenance contract at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per Laproscope/ Laprocator for one year, has been fled as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Mrs. Tehmina Punwani, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Dhruv Mathur for the petitioner and Sri S. B. Pandey for the respondent No. 6 and learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Deepak Seth for respondent No. 4. Gyrus A. C. M. I. International Limited, U. K. is said to be a pioneer company manufacturing and maintaining K. L. I. brand of Laprocator/laproscope sets which is an equipment used for female sterlisation. M/s. Aravali International as an exclusive nominee of Gyrus A. C. M. I. International Limited U. K. for K. L. I, brand Laprocators/laproscopes and accessories having. rights of distribution and maintenance of Laprocator/laproscope sets in India. The petitioner M/s. Lapro Sales is the authorised Agent for the supply/ maintenance of Laprocators/ laproscopes of M/s. Aravali International in the State of Uttar Pradesh. M/s. Aravali International is undisputedly a recognised and a registered dealer for the supply and maintenance of the Laprocator/ laproscope sets in U. P. The Director of Family Welfare Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 3, vide letters dated 10. 1. 2006 and 18. 1. 2006, addressed to only three of the firms namely, M/s. Aravali International Limited, M/s. Pregna International Limited (respondent No. 6) and M/s. Delhi Hospital Company Ltd. , invited quotations for the annual maintenance of the Laprocator/ laproscope sets in U. P. and to notify the name of their authrised Agent in U. P.
(3.) IT appears that in pursuance of the above letters, the respondent No. 6 submitted its quotation at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per Laprocator/ laproscope set per annum whereas M/s. Aravali International quoted the rate of Rs. 4,000 (inclusive of all taxes) per set per annum and named the petitioner M/s. Lapro Sales as its authorised Agent/distributor. On negotiations, M/s. Aravali International vide letter dated 22. 2. 2006 offered a discount of Rs. 300 per annum per set for the next three years and quoted Rs. 3,700 per set per annum as against the quoted rate of Rs. 4,000 per set per annum. This offer was further reduced to Rs. 3,600 per set per annum vide letter dated 27. 11. 2006 which is also recorded in the letter of the Director respondent No. 3, dated 5. 12. 2006. Thus, on the date of finalisaton of contract i. e. , 8. 2. 2007 the offer of both the parties stood at par at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per set per annum. Finally, it appears that the quotation of the respondent No. 6 was accepted on 8. 2. 2007 without having further negotiations or allowing the parties to reduce their respective offers. On behalf of the petitioner only two contentions have been raised. First, the respondent No. 1 to 3 have not followed a fair and reasonable procedure in awarding the aforesaid contract. Secondly, on the date of the award of contract both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 have quoted the same amount of Rs. 3,600 per Laproscope/ Laprocator per annum. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 to 3 acted arbitrarily in picking up the respondent No. 6 and in awarding contract to it without calling the petitioner for any further negotiations more particularly when the petitioner had been maintaining the Laproscopes/laprocator sets for a continuous period of past 24 years.;