Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioners assail the evaluation of two of the bids received by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) following a notice inviting tender. The project, as BSNL emphasises, is of great importance and is part of the upgrading of mobile telephone services in the country. The expanded description of the work in the tender documents is, "Planning, engineering, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of infrastructure for 18 million lines of cellular mobile expansion project phase-VI in East Zone."
(2.) On this petition being received, an order was made on June 12, 2009 restraining the respondent authorities from issuing any work order to the fourth respondent. The order recorded that the financial bids in response to the notice inviting tender were opened on February 28, 2009 when it was perceived that the first petitioner had quoted the lowest rates, but by a communication of May 8, 2009 the first petitioner was informed by BSNL that on an evaluation of the bids the fourth respondent had emerged as the lowest bidder. The Court observed that the communication lacked clarity as it was not possible to ascertain therefrom as to what factors weighed with BSNL "in amending the ranking." A doubt was also expressed as to whether the "re-evaluation" could have been undertaken without reference to the petitioners.
(3.) The matter was heard at length on the returnable date on June 19, 2009 when the fourth respondent was represented. A chart was handed over by BSNL to demonstrate that the evaluation of the bids was in accordance with the terms of the tender documents. The petitioners urged that the schedule of requirements (SOR) had been revised on September 6, 2008 and the bid submitted by the fourth respondent was not responsive to the revised SOR. The argument was that either the fourth respondent's offer had to be rejected or, in accordance with the tender conditions, the amount quoted in respect of the relevant material had to be appropriately loaded to the extent of the variance. Upon the rival contentions being noticed, the order dated June 19, 2009 continued the subsisting interim order and expeditious directions were given for affidavits to be filed.;