NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-65
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 09,2011

Nectar Lifescience Limited Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J. - (1.) PURSUANT to a notice inviting tenders for purchase of 44.26% equity shares held by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) in Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Limited (PACL), fourteen companies including the writ petitioner-Company submitted their respective responses. The bid submitted by the petitioner-Company was found to be technically qualified. In a meeting held on 7.12.2010 of the Cabinet Sub-committee a decision was taken not to approve the bid of the petitioner-Company. The Cabinet sub Committee came to take up the matter on a reference made by the Core Committee of Officers on Disinvestment in a meeting held on 14th September, 2010 which was presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab. The resolution of the meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee in which the aforesaid decision was reached may be extracted below: "b) M/S Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce apprised in detail that M/S Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. (formerly known as M/S Surya Medicare Ltd.) was a company promoted by PSIDC in joint sector. However, the private promoters of M/S Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. purchased equity shares held by PSIDC under a One Time Settlement Scheme which is at present under dispute since 15/16-05-2009. Further, the Bidder has deliberately avoided amicable settlement of the demand raised by PSIDC. Further, the RFQ documents require every bidder to disclose all such material facts and disputes in its bid submissions, which the bidder has failed to do in this case. The Global Advisor apprised that under Clause 2.11 of the RFQ document, DOD/GOP has discretion to reject any bid where it finds reasonable grounds to do that. Therefore, keeping in view the defaults and disputes of the bidder as stated above and all other facts, circumstances and interest of PSIDC, CCD did not find it prudent to approve the bid of M/S Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. and, therefore, decided not to approve the pre-qualification of this bid also. CCD, therefore, approved the following 12 EOIs out of the total 14 received: (1). M/s J.P.Associates Ltd., Noida. (2). M/s Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chandigarh. (3). M/s Nirma Ltd., Ahmedabad. (4). M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd., Derabassi, Punjab. (5). M/s KLJ Resources Ltd., New Delhi. (6). M/s Amtek Auto Ltd., New Delhi. (7). M/s Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (8). M/s Panoli Intermediates (India) Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi. (9). M/s Lords Chloro Alkali Ltd., New Delhi. (10). M/s Jay Polychem (India) Ltd., New Delhi. (11). M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., Nagda (M.P.) (12). M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Chandigarh."
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. Though the aforesaid decision was taken on 7.12.2010, the writ petition itself was filed on 4.2.2011. The above date would be relevant to notice the fact that, in the meantime, the due diligence process is over and tomorrow i.e. 10.2.2011 is the date fixed for the pre-bidding stage where after financial bids, on a date to be notified, will be required to be submitted by the eligible bidders.
(3.) THE delayed approach to this Court has been sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that on 7.1.2011, the petitioner-Company wrote a letter (Annexure P-5) seeking information with regard to the status of its bid to which a cryptic reply was given by respondent No.1 on the same date (Annexure P-7) that contained a reference to para 2.25(b) of the Request for Qualification Document. In terms of the aforesaid paragraph, no queries were to be entertained with regard to the progress of the bids submitted. According to the petitioner, it is only after another writ petition (C.W.P.No.996 of 2011) was filed by another disqualified bidder that the details of the rejection of the bids of the petitioner came to its knowledge leading to the filing of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the due diligence process is for the benefit of the bidders and the petitioner is ready and willing to relinquish its rights under the said process.;


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