D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) Referring to the judgment delivered by this Court on 28.4.2009 in WP(C) No. 422 of 2009, I.A. No. 1418 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the notice inviting tender irrespective of clause 1.3.2.(i) of the notice inviting tender in relation to the eligibility criteria for participation.
(2.) Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had challenged the eligibility criteria as laid down in the tender notice dated 16.1.2009 issued by the respondents as being unconstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory. While considering the impugned eligibility criteria, this Court had observed that the same had failed to satisfy the test of reasonableness since insertion of the impugned restrictive clause deprives the petitioner of his legitimate opportunity to participate in the tender bid. Learned counsel adds that though the above observation was recorded but no specific direction Was issued to the respondents considering the assurance given by the respondents that the petitioner would be given due opportunity to participate in the tender bid in future in respect of his products.
(3.) It is submitted that subsequent to the earlier tender notice dated 16.1.2009, the respondents have floated another tender dated 6.4.2009 containing the same restrictive clause in the eligibility criteria. The petitioner submitted his letter of pro test explaining that such restrictive clause in the eligibility criteria has been held by this Court in its judgment passed in the writ petition, as being illegal and arbitral) on the ground that it tends to deprive the petitioner and other similarly situated m facturers like him from participating in tender bid.;