R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties at length.
(2.) PETITIONER is seeking a declaration that the second Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) floated in the month of September, 2007 by the respondents is bad in law. Mr. Choudhary, learned senior counsel, appearing for petitioner, submitted that after opening the Techno Commercial Bid, the parties, who took part in the N.I.T., were asked to submit their revised rate. Accordingly, revised rate was submitted and petitioner was found lowest. Certain negotiations followed. Thereafter petitioner was not informed whether its offer has been accepted or not, but subsequently it learnt that a fresh N.I.T. has been floated in September, 2007. He further submitted that after the price bid was open, respondents could not have floated another N.I.T. and the work order should have been issued in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the decision not to accept petitioners offer and to float a fresh N.I.T., was not arbitrary, illegal or malafide and therefore, this Court should not interfere in this matter. He relied on , Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. He further submitted that there were only two parties including the petitioner who took part in N.I.T. It is true that petitioners offer was lowest but when the matter was considered at higher level, it was pointed out by the Project Appraisal Group, (Corporate Office), New Delhi that there has been some ambiguity/mistake in the N.I.T. with regard to the eligibility criteria. Though the respondent company had to install/construct the new Water Cooling System but it was found that N.I.T. did not specify whether experience of -renovation of Cooling Tower or the experience of installing a new Cooling Tower, be considered as requisite experience for fulfilling the eligibility criteria. He further submitted that petitioner submitted its tender documents showing that it has experience in renovation of Cooling Towers. In the circumstances, it was thought that due to such ambiguity/mistake the other parties having experience of installation of New Cooling Tower might not have taken part and only the parties having experience of renovation might have taken part. Accordingly, it was decided that a fresh N.I.T. be issued clearly mentioning the eligibility criteria -that the offerers must have experience of installing new Cooling Towers. In the first N.I.T. only two parties took part but in the second N.I.T. several parties have taken part. He lastly submitted that in terms of the N.I.T., the respondent company had a right not to accept a tender, without assigning any reason. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I am satisfied that the decision of floating fresh N.I.T. was not illegal, arbitrary or malafide. Only because the petitioner was the lowest bidder in the first N.I.T. he did not acquire any right. There was ambiguity in the eligibility criteria and accordingly petitioner submitted the tender documents showing its experience in -renovation of Cooling Tower; whereas the N.I.T. was for establishing a new Cooling Tower. Respondent company was justified in making the ambiguity clear/correcting its mistake with regard to the eligibility criteria.;