- (1.) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions, therefore, both have been clubbed, heard and are being decided together.
(2.) BY S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2006, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.4.2006 (Anx. 11) by which the respondent No. 2 has disqualified the petitioner from participating in the financial bid. The petitioner company has prayed for production of the entire record of the said Bid and notice for invitation of bid for High Security Registration Plates (in short `HSRP') and quashing of the said order dated 10.4.2006 with the further prayer that the direction be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner company as qualified and simultaneously allow it to take part in further process of tender. The petitioner company has also prayed that the respondents be restrained from proceeding further in the tender process by awarding the contract to any other party and issuing the Letter of Intent in favour of any party. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a public limited company, entered into joint venture with M/s. EHA Hoffmann KG and SIEGEM EISS, West Germany and submitted its tender for HSRP, the NIT for which was issued by the respondents on 20.4.2005. It is stated in the writ petition that the joint venture partner has been into manufacturing and supply of HSRP for almost 40 years and have been operating in more than 30 countries worldwide. The last date for submission of the Bid was 25.5.2005; date for opening of the technical bid was the same date as that of submission of the bids i.e. 25.5.2005 and the validity of the bid was 90 days from the date of opening of the technical bid; the technical bids were opened on 25.5.2005 and the petitioner company was disqualified in the technical bid on 10.4.2006. In between, there was correspondence with the petitioner company which has been placed on record with the further averment that the documents submitted by the petitioner-company with the tender fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Clause 1.6 and Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules (in short `the Rules'). The petitioner company has also stated in the writ petition that during the verification as per the check list, the respondents did not find any fault with the petitioner company as well as the bid submitted by it. However, on 6.9.2005 (Anx. 7), the petitioner was informed to explain how it was eligible for the bid as per the requirement of the bid document particularly with regard to the joint venture document executed by the constituent of the petitioner. Reply to the said letter was given on 10.9.2005 (Anx. 8) and no further enquiry was raised with regard to the said issue which clearly revealed that the respondents had accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner company with regard to the joint venture. Further query was raised by the respondents/Tender Evaluation Committee on 12.9.2005 relating to experience certificates, reply of which was given by the petitioner on 14.9.2005 (Anx. 9) and details along with the desired invoice and translated documents and certificates in order to demonstrate that it has complied with the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience as desired in the bid document. Thereafter, suddenly on 10.4.206, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner company about its disqualification in technical bid for HSRP with the further information that the refund order of earnest money deposited by the petitioner along with the bid have also been issued vide order dated 10.4.2006. Although in the order dated 10.4.2006 no specific reason has been assigned but it is stated in the writ petition that the reason is not fulfilling the experience criteria as required under the tender condition No. 1.6 and Rule 50 of the Rules. By SBCWP No. 3812/2006, the petitioner M/s. Hind Industries Limited, has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.4.2006 (Anx. 4) whereby the petitioner was informed that it was not found qualified in Technical bids and prayed for setting aside the same. The petitioner has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs. The facts, in brief of the aforesaid writ petition, as per the petitioner M/s. Hind Industries Limited, are that pursuant to the NIT dated 20.4.2005 the petitioner submitted its tender for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) on 25.5.2005. On 6.9.2005 the respondent No. 2 wrote letter to the petitioner asking to appear the duly constituted Committee on 12.9.2005 on which date the petitioner appeared in person and clarified the queries so made. On 13.9.2005, the petitioner again wrote letter to the respondents communicating them all the facts. As aforesaid, vide letter dated 10.4.2006, the respondents rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the writ petition. The legal issues on the basis of which the aforesaid relief has been claimed by M/s. Hind Industries Limited (SBCWP No. 3812/2006) are common, therefore, there is no need to reiterate the same again by dealing with this particular case.
(3.) THE respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and referred to the amended Rule 50 of the Rules, Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2001 (in short `Order 2001') purported to be issued in exercise of the powers under sub section (3) of Sec. 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989; the guidelines dated 6.3.2002 and the mandatory requirement of the tender condition 2.19.2 to substantiate their submission stated in the reply that the petitioner company was not found to be technically qualified in evaluation process as it was not fulfilling the experience of working in the field of high security registration plates in minimum number of four countries having used at least one of the security features as mentioned in Rule 50 of the Rules and Order, 2001. Otherwise, also, the experience certificates were not duly issued by the user agency/authority in English language. THE respondents have also stated in their reply that the certificates of Pakistan, Russia, Germany, Israil and Estonia were not in conformity with the aforesaid mandatory requirement and the certificates of Malta and Peru were found in order. THE mandatory requirement of the tender condition No. 1.6 is that the experience certificate should have been given by the user agency/authority of at least four countries whereas the petitioner company was having experience certificates from two countries only. It would be relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Letter of Intent was issued on 24/25th April, 2006 in favour of M/s. SHIMNIt UTSCH India Pvt. Ltd. (in short `M/s. SHIMNIt UTSCH') and an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the said M/s. SHIMNIt UTSCH for impleadment. However, M/s. SHIMNIt UTSCH was allowed to intervene in the matter. It is also further relevant to mention here that the tender process has not been finalized by awarding contract in favour of the Intervener because of the pendency of this writ petition. Submission of Mr. Paras Kuhad, counsel for the petitioner company, is that the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 of holding the petitioner company disqualified for the technical bid is a non-speaking order and further no reason for rejection of the aforesaid bid is available on the record. As regards the experience certificate, the condition was not mandatory and it was open for the respondents to negotiate with the petitioner company which was done to a certain extent but subsequently on the basis of the non-fulfillment of the requirement of experience certificate, which is not mandatory in nature, the petitioner company has been arbitrarily and unlawfully disqualified from participating in the financial bid. ;