SILIGURI ELECTRIC WORKS Vs. TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Siliguri Electric Works is a manufacturer and supplier of distribution transformer (Dry and Oil) etc. In response to the notice inviting tender dtd. 11/12/2013 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] for supply of 'Design, Manufacture, Testing at works, Supply o& Transportation of 25 KVA, Aluminum wound, 11/0.433-0.250 KV, 3 phase, 50 Hz, Distribution Transformer 200 nos,' the petitioner quoted their rates.

(2.) There is no dispute the supply order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19/5/2014 for 200 nos. of distribution transformers of for an amount of Rs.1,00,33,000.00 (one crore thirty three thousand). The petitioner had accepted the supply order with its terms and conditions without any reservation. In clause-8 of the said supply order it has been provided that as per contract clause No.20.4 in Sec. (iii), pre-dispatch inspection shall be conducted by the authorized representatives of the TSECL and all expenses involved due to lodging and boarding of stay outside the state etc. for conducting pre- dispatched acceptance test etc. would be defrayed in terms of the said contract. It is also not in dispute that the said pre-dispatched inspection was to ensure that the materials are supplied in terms of the specification. Further details of the contract [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] do not have any relevance in the present context save that the approved design was made part of the said agreement [pages 103-105 of the writ petition].

(3.) The petitioner has stated that pre-dispatched testing was conducted and its report dtd. 29/9/2014 was communicated to the petitioner and only thereafter those materials were dispatched. The petitioner has averred that the guarantee certificate for a period of 12- 18 months were also issued while transporting those transformers to reach the store of the respondents. The respondent No.2 had also received those goods and thereafter the petitioner was requested by the letter dtd. 15/11/2014 to depute one representative to witness the testing in the store of the respondents. Having received that communication dtd. 15/11/2014, the testing was carried out on 26/11/2014. During testing suddenly it was located that the machine was not working properly and as a result the testing could not be completed. Thereafter no testing was done. However, the petitioner requested for the testing report by the communication dtd. 22/12/2014 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition].