V.K.GUPTA,.J. - (1.) HATIA Shramik Sangh, a registered Union of Employees affiliated to the Central Organisation, namely, Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh (its Members being the workers of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.) (HEC, for short) has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL), writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the entire tendering process subsequent to the opening of the price bid in favour of the Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML, for short) respondent No. 4 in the writ application and for other ancillary, consequential and additional reliefs as emanating from and/or based upon the opening of aforesaid price bid of BEML. It may be actually worthwhile to reproduce verbatim the reliefs claimed in the writ application. These reads thus : - - "That in the instant writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire tender process subsequent to opening of the price bid as per the Tender No. CIL/C2D/10 M3 Elec. Rope shovel/2001 -02/17 whereby and whereunder the tender has been made one party tender and the work order is going to be awarded to M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited, which is against the public interest and is a fraud on the public exchequer; and/or For the issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi to institute an enquiry into the entire tender process as aforesaid and to take penal actions against the erring officers; and/or For the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi to institute an enquiry into the conduct of the Coal India Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking whereby although being a Government Enterprise, it is issuing work orders worth crores of rupees to petty dealers without issuing any tender notice and by merely entering into by -partite agreement through to winds all norms of public propriety, openness as prescribed for the Government Agencies; and/or Pass any such other order(s)/ writ(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of natural justice."
(2.) COAL India Ltd. (CIL, for short) respondent No. 1 in this petition, issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT, for short) for supply of twelve number of 10 M3 Electric Rope Shovels through Tender No. CIL/C2D/10M3 Elec. Rope Shovel/2001 -02/17. Due date and time for submission of the tender was up to 6.11.2001, 1 p.m., and the due date and time for opening of the tenders was the same date but at 3 p.m. What is of utmost relevance for our purposes is the very opening part of the NIT which reads thus : "Sealed bids are invited in Duplicate only from the Proven Indigenous Manufacturers (Proven means such manufacturers who have successfully supplied, erected and commissioned machines of equal or higher capacity which are giving satisfactory performance in any colliery/coal mine/industry in India for a period of not less than one year from the date of successful commissioning) for supply of 12 (twelve). Nos. 10 M3 Electric Rope Shovel to various subsidiaries of CIL as per detailed specifications enclosed." It shall be also relevant to go back a little in period of time before the date of issuance of the NIT in question. On 26.12.2000, CIL had issued a Global Tender Enquiry by way of an earlier Notice Inviting Tenders for the procurement of the same Machinery, that is, 10M3 Electric Rope Shovels. The last date for receipt of the tenders in the said earlier NIT was 5.3.2001. The opening part of that NIT dated 26.12.2000 read as under : - - "Sealed Bids are invited in Duplicate only from the Proven Indian and Foreign Manufacturers (Proven Means such manufacturers who have successfully supplied, erected, commissioned machines of equal or higher capacity which are giving satisfactory performance in any colliery/coal mine/industry in India for a period of not less than one year from the date of successful commission) and/or their authorised Indian Agents for supply of following equipment."
(3.) IT is the undisputed case of the parties that after successive extensions in the due date for receipt of the tender and its opening, the aforesaid Global NIT ultimately came to be superseded by the NIT in -question. The distinction between the Global NFT and the NIT in -question was that whereas in the Global NIF sealed Bids were invited from proven Indian and Foreign Manufacturers, in the NIT in -question, sealed Bids were invited from the proven Indigenous Manufacturers. The word "indigenous", therefore, as the subsequent details would testify, indeed became very relevant and gave rise to contentious issues as far as this litigation is concerned.;