BAHU COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENDERS were invited by respondents 1 to 3 from approved list of ASC contractors of the Northern Command for the supply of Ice (MM) from 10. 10. 1994 to 30. 9. 1995 at Jaurian station. Petitioner also submitted his tender and quoted Rs. 43.10 per 100 Kgs. as against Rs. 43.21 of respondent No. 4. Tenders were opened on 19.8. 1994 and it is alleged that respondent No. 3 declared the petitioner as lowest tenderer.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he waited for allotment of the contract thereafter but invain. He accordingly addressed a communication to respondent No. 2 and then served a notice on him through his counsel which went unacknowledged. He ultimately learnt that the contract had been allotted to respondent No. 4, but when he applied for copy of the order it was refused to him and he was thus constrained to file the present petition. Petitioner complains that he had been treated unfairly and his right for allotment of the contract had been denied on extraneous and mala fide considerations at the cost of public exchequer. It is also submitted that the alibi, offered for, rejection of his tender is flimsy and untenable.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 have sought refuge under Condition No. 7 of the Tender document which empowers respondent No. 2 to reject a tender, without assigning any reason. On merits it is, explained that petitionerâ„¢s, tender was rejected by a panel of officers after it was declared fictitious in accordance with the policy directions contained in Defence Ministrys letter No. F -12 (1) 83/D/QS dated 6.8.1983 as amended by subsequent letter dated 31.8.1990 which provides for a tender to be treated as fictitious if it quotes a rate lower than 20% of the "reasonable rate". It is further pointed out that the "reasonable rate" is worked out by the panel of officers on the day tenders are opened and is to be kept a closely guarded secret. The allegations of mala fides are denied and it is submitted that tenders; of different stations are dealt with by different panels of officers and there is no question of one influencing the other.