- (1.) This writ petition was filed questioning the tender dated 10.6.2016 and the order dated 22.7.2016 primarily on the ground that the tender conditions have been tailored contrary to what has been laid down by the Court between the parties in an earlier decision in Writ Petition No.11775 (MB) of 2015 decided on 10.2.2016. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 is not in possession of the chassis of the model as prescribed and the tender dated 10.6.2016 has been tailored in violation of Rule 125 - C of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the notifications issued thereunder to extend the benefit of the contract to the 5th respondent.
(2.) The petition was initially entertained and the following order was passed on 3.8.2016:- Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 along with Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Jaydeep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent. The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the allegation of the petitioner about the exclusion of the statutory requirement under Rule 125 - C of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 from the tender conditions. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the Notifications dated 2nd May, 2016 and 18th January, 2016 to counter these submissions contending that the tenders have been floated viz-a-viz the required model. The petitioner himself has participated in the tender proceedings and had made his offer with regard to the same models and under the same conditions of the certifications without objection. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has participated in other tenders where no such objection has been raised. The question can be resolved and for that assistance is required about the meaning of the words 'existing models' and new models of the buses. Let learned counsels assist the Court. Put up on Monday i.e on 8th of August, 2016.
(3.) Affidavits were filed in the matter and a contest was put forth by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as well as by the respondent No.5. When the matter came up again before the Court for consideration, the following order came to be passed by the Division Bench on 5.10.2016:- Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vibhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anupras Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5. This writ petition basically challenges the order dated 22.7.2016, awarding-tender dated 10.6.2016 to respondent No.5. The challenge is on two grounds. Firstly, the exclusion of statutory requirement under Rule 125 - C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 from the tender notice, and secondly, purchase policy, namely, in the event of difference between the successful bidder and the second highest bidder is less than 5%, the contract would be split into two parts, one purchase order would be issued to the highest bidder for 60% of the work, whereas a second purchase order would be issued to the second highest bidder for the remaining 40% of the work. Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the second highest bidder is entitled to a purchase order for 40% of the work. Then, he submits that he has instructions to give up the first contention. In other words, he submits that the challenge on the first ground may be rejected as not pressed. Order accordingly. Insofar as the second ground of challenge is concerned, counsels for the respondents seek time to file short counter affidavit. Time, as prayed, is granted till the next date. It is needless to mention that they shall serve a copy thereof to the counsel for the petitioner well in advance. S.O. to 2.11.2016. ;