VATECH ESCHER WISS FLOVEL LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Vatech Escher Wiss Flovel Ltd. was filed seeking redress alleging arbitrary action of the Respondents. The petitioners claiming itself as a company engaged, inter alia, in manufacturing of hydro turbines, undertaking turnkey basis supply, design, extra and construction of hydro power projects in various parts of country and abroad founded in 1972 with turn over of Rs. 50 crores and employee strength of 250 persons, having counterpart in Swizerland, Germany and Austria.

(2.) Brief facts are as follows. In April 2001 the Respondents published a Notice inviting Tender No. 6/54/2001-CE(PC)/,1 for design, manufacture, testing at Works, supply, installation, storage at site, commissioning and subsequent operation and maintenance of generating units and Electro mechanical equipments of Maicham-II (2x1.5 MW) small hydro electric project in the State of Mizoran. The respondent required the intending bidders to submit tender in Two separate sealed covers. Cover I was the "TECHNO COMMERCIAL BID", that was to contain the technical and commercial specifications of the tender and Cover II was called "FINANCIAL BID" to contain the financial figures and/or the price at which the bidder was ready to undertake the job. Such process of tendering is called Two Part Tendering Process and is a universally accepted method of processing of public tenders. Petition submitted its bid in terms of tender notice and as stipulated on 28.6.2001. It was opened on same day as per usual norms and there were five tenders, who or their representatives were present at the time of opening of the Techno Commercial Bid (Cover-I). On scrutiny of the tender documents only two of the tenderers remained in the fray, being the petitioner and M/S Jyoti Ltd.

(3.) On 17.8.2001 Respondent No. 2 issued letter, bearing No. 6/54/A 2001- CE(PC)5 that was received by your Petitioner on the 20th of Aug., 2001 wherein the Respondent sought certain clarifications with regard to the Techno Commercial Bid of the petitioner to be submitted/replied by 27.8.2001 and the petitioner replied to the letter above mentioned by 25.8.2001, vide his Memo. No. 11/MKT/319/PDN/3255 dated 25.8.2001 containing the clarifications sought for and thereby accepting without demur all and/or any of the issues raised by the Respondent Authority in its letter dated 17.8.2001 aforesaid. The petitioner contended that as per normal and accepted principles of the process of Two-part Tendering it submitted revised price-list along with its reply letter above mentioned, dated 25.8.2001.