Gujarat High Court
Rosmerta Technologies Limited & vs Commissioner Of Transport & 2 on 6 October, 2015
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12306 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of No
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI, LD. SR. ADVOCATE FOR J SAGAR ASSOCIATES,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, LD. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MS S.K. VISHEN, LD.
AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
KOMAL S DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ASPI M KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DK SINGH, LD. SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Page 1 of 35
HC-NIC Page 1 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR.JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 06/10/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, and asserting violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the petitioners herein have prayed for setting aside the Letter of Intent dated 30th June, 2015 issued by respondent No.1- Commissioner of Transport, Government of Gujarat in favour of private respondent No.3 pursuant to an E- Tendering process and thereby selecting respondent No.3 to be the agency for supply of consumables and manpower for supply and preparation of Smart-Card based Driving Licences in the State of Gujarat. Along with the said principal prayer to quash the award of the contract to respondent No.3, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondent authorities to award the aforesaid work/tender to the petitioner company, to treat respondent No.3 as technically disqualified, etc.
2. Commissioner of Transport, Government of Gujarat-respondent No.1 came out with tender being E- tender No.GIPL/COT/2014/SDL/10, for supply of consumables and manpower for preparation of smart card based driving licenses for the State. Respondent No.2- Gujarat Info Petro Limited (GIPL) was the nodal agency which was assigned the task for completing the bidding process for the said work. The contract period of the Page 2 of 35 HC-NIC Page 2 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT project was provided to be of five years.
2.1 The process envisaged in the Request For Proposal (RFP) document relating to the bidding procedure involved the stages comprising of preliminary and pre-qualification scrutiny, evaluation of technical bids, evaluation of commercial bids, negotiations with the selected bidders and awarding the contract. The RFP document, copy of which is produced along with the petition, inter alia mentioned the qualification criteria for the intending bidder including that the bidder shall be registered under the Companies Act, 1956, that it shall have the prescribed turn over of more than Rs.15 crores during the last three years, ought to have positive net worth for more than Rupees Five crores, must have executed at least two projects, etc. The RFP document prescribed and mentioned various qualification criteria mentioned as under- (1) The above mentioned qualification criteria is mandatory, otherwise, the bid will not be considered valid bid for opening of the Technical Bid, and adequate documentary proof shall be submitted for verification, (2) Financial bid qualification criteria: Bidders who have complied to all the above mentioned points and provided all the supporting document will qualify for the opening up of the Financial bid.
2.2 The further relevant clauses from the RFP document are extracted hereinbelow which explain the stages in the tender process.
"3. Overview of Bidding Process
Page 3 of 35
HC-NIC Page 3 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
All evaluation will be carried out by GIPL on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT) as detailed below.
i) Preliminary Scrutiny The technical proposals will be opened on the mentioned date in this Bid Document at GIPL's Office. The bidders not submitting tender fees & EMD shall be straight away rejected for further tender evaluation.
ii) Pre-qualification Criteria Scrutiny The tenders who do not conform to meet any / partial / all the pre-qualification criteria mentioned in tender shall be straight away rejected. All eligible tenders will be considered for further evaluation.
iii) Evaluation of Technical bids The Technical Bid will be examined on the basis of responsiveness of the Evaluation Methodology and the Scope of work and other details as mentioned herein the document. Technical evaluation marking statement of bidders is prepared based on the Evaluation Methodology & their compliance to all the terms and conditions of the tender will be prepared.
iv) Evaluation of Commercial bids The Commercial bids will be opened for the technically qualified bidders only. The bidder who stands L1 may be awarded the contract. COT will have the right to divide this order between more than one party at L1 price and may do as at his discretion.
The decision of COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT) will be final in this regard.
Final Negotiations & Award of Contract At the completion of the selection process, COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT) may enter into negotiations with the selected Bidder to identify any needed revisions to the proposal. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT) reserves the right to award the contract based on initial offers received or otherwise, without discussion and without conducting any further negotiations. Further, the selected Bidder may not reassign any award made as the result of this bid, without prior written consent from COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT)."
2.3 Clause 4 was about the documents constituting the bid-relating to (i) technical bid,
(ii) financial bid, and (iii) earnest money deposit. It was provided that no price shall be indicated as Page 4 of 35 HC-NIC Page 4 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT part of technical bid and the price shall be quoted only in the financial bid, thereby making explicit the obvious distinctness of the two kinds of bids. Clause No.4(v) relating to documents constituting the bid provided that an undertaking from the bidder stating the compliance with all the conditions of the Bidding Document will be required since no deviation would be acceptable to Commissioner of Transport.
2.4 Caluse No. 8(iii) stated about rejection of the bid and was as under, "Rejection of Bid Any condition put forth by the bidder non-conforming the bid requirements shall not be entertained at all and such bids shall be rejected. The Technical Bid shall be submitted in the form of printed document and both technical and financial bid must be uploaded only through https://nprocure.com.Bids submitted by Telex, fax or email will not be entertained. Any bid not authenticated as per clause 8(ii) or not secured will be rejected straightaway by COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT) without any further correspondences, as non- responsive. A bid that does meet any qualification criteria or is not responsive or not fulfilling technical evaluation will be disqualified and rejected by GIPL/COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT (COT), and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the non-conforming deviation or reservation by the Bidder."
2.5 Clause 12 mentioned about the opening of bids, inter alia stating that commercial bids shall be only opened in respect of those bidders who have been technically qualified. The said clause read thus.
"12. Opening of Bids
(i) Opening of Commercial Bids Commercial Bids will be opened at GIPL's office as per date mentioned in the tender document or any other subsequent date intimated to concerned bidders by GIPL and compared after the technical evaluation has been completed for those Bidders who have been technically Page 5 of 35 HC-NIC Page 5 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT qualified.
(ii) Bids Not Considered For Evaluation Bids that are rejected during the bid opening process shall not be considered for further evaluation, irrespective of the circumstances."
2.6 The scope of work was mentioned in Section 3 of RFP document. It covered making available pre- printed smart cards and the hardware required for the purpose. It stated as under.
"The bidder shall make available pre-printed smart cards and required hardware as per the specifications provide given below and as per the design approved by the COT (as may be modified by law from time to time.) The bidder shall ensure that the actual print out on the smartcard faithfully reflects all the features of the design. The soft copy of the design shall be provided by the COT to the bidder and the bidder shall keep the same in full confidence and return the same to the COT after use.
Sr. Particulars
No.
1 Single Window Counter with manpower .........
2 Smartcard Printer-200 DPI Smartcard printer........
3 Smart Card Reader/Writer-PC/SCOSTA compliant...
4 Bio matric fingerprint scanner....
5 Web camera Minimum 5.0 or higher .......
6 Signature pads- Tablet 4' X 5" (RS232) - signature
pad-As per annexure III.......
7 Laster Printers-16 PPM- As per annexure-III
8 Surveillance camera......
9 Smartcard Specification-As per Annexure-VI
Technical specifications as per clause (s) of rule 2 of CMVR 1989, ISO 7816, 1 11693 and 11694 for smartcard with 64KB memory chip and as modified from time to time by law.
Page 6 of 35
HC-NIC Page 6 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
(emphasised as applicable)
The pre-printed cards shall be numbered sequentially and complete record of the same shall be kept and submitted to the COT at such periodicity as may be mandated by COT.
Quality check of pre-printed cards (Certification of Quality Verification) Printing & Preparing of smart card:
The bidder shall be fully responsible for printing and preparing the smart card as per the information provided by COT."
2.7 Annexure VI as originally incorporated, it reads thus, "Annexure-VI-SMART CARD SPECIFICATION Preprinted 64K Smart Cards with NIC certified SCOSTA Modules, SCOSTA v 1.2b issue Date March 15, 2002 along with all the latest amendments and addendum as per NIC specifications (refer to www.scosta.gov.in) Smart card contains QR code. Quick Response Codes are a type of two-dimensional barcode that can be read using smartphones and dedicated QR reading devices, that link directly to text, emails, websites and phone numbers."
3. The chronology of facts and the event is important. Therefore, they may be adverted to in their requisite details.
3.1 On 09th October, 2014 notice relating to E- tender inquiry for selection of a party to supply the consumable and manpower for preparation of smart card based driving licence came to be published in the newspapers, wherein the eligibility criteria for the bidder was mentioned.
3.1.1 Initially, the last date and time of submission bid was 05th November 2014, at 5.00 p.m., and date for opening of technical bid was 05th Page 7 of 35 HC-NIC Page 7 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT November, 2015 at 5.15 p.m. date and time for opening of financial bid was 10th November, 2014 at 5.00 p.m. vide Corrigendum No.1 dated 03rd November, 2014, respondent Nos.1 & 2 inter alia extended the date of submission of bid to 15th November, 2014.
3.1.2 By said Corrigendum dated 03rd November, 2014, the specifications of the smart cards were mentioned and the bidders were asked to submit sample cards for verification of quality and compliance. The bidders were required to supply SCOSTA Certified and NID approved design cards having composition of 60% Poly Etheylene Terephlate Plastic (PET) and 40% Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) used for card body and top polyester patch of 1 mil (minimum) needed to be applied above the thermal printing layer for durability of printing. The parties were asked to attach sample cards with the physical bid. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had the right to select the sample card for verification of quality and compliance.
3.1.3 It is the say of the respondents that respondent No.1 was advised by National Institute of Design to have the contents of PET in the smart card for durability and in that view, the Corrigendum dated 03rd November, 2014 was issued specifying the requirement of PET and PVC composition in the smart card.
3.1.4 Thereafter respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued another subsequent Corrigendum as well and extended the date of submission of bids. The dates and the Page 8 of 35 HC-NIC Page 8 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT calendar for bidding process was changed from initial 05th November, 2014 for opening the bid to 15th November, 2014, then again to 24th November, 2014, thereafter to 29th November, 2014 and finally the same was fixed to be the 05th December, 2014.
3.1.5 The last Corrigendum-No.5 mentioned the final dates as under,
(i) Last Date & Time of submission of Bid was fixed 29th November, 2014 by 5.00 pm, which was modified and changed to 5th December, 2014 by 5.00 pm.
(ii) Last Date & Time of physical submission of Tender Fee, EMD & all necessary documents was fixed 29th November, 2014 by 5.00 pm, which was modified and changed to 5th December, 2014 by 5.00 pm.
(iii) Date & Time for opening of Technical Bid fixed 29th November, 2014 by 5.15 pm, which was modified and changed to 5th December, 2014 by 5.15 pm.
(iv) Date & Time for opening of Financial Bid were not mentioned and it was stated that the same would be intimated later.
3.1.6 The petitioner company by letter dated 29th November, 2014 objected to the extension of time for submission of bids stating that the extension was with bad intention and was guided under pressure of certain parties and to favour them.
3.1.7 On 07th December, 2014 technical bids were opened. 10 parties were found to be complying with the basic eligibility criteria mentioned in the RFP document. It appears that in order to check and verify the PET-PVC contents in the cards supplied by the bidders, the sample cards of all the bidders qualified for consideration of their for technical bid were sent to Page 9 of 35 HC-NIC Page 9 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT Central Institute of Plastic Engineering Technology (CIPET), Ahmedabad. The report of CIPET, Ahmedabad dated 03rd February, 2015 suggested that card of no one amongst the qualified bidders had the requisite specified PET material to the tune of 60%. In other words, none of the bidders were found to be compliant of requisite PET:PVC content.
3.1.8 Respondent No.2 agency, however, opened the financial bids on 7th February, 2015 at 5.15 p.m. at its office and appears to have intimated in that regard to the Commissioner of Transport by letter dated 10th February, 2015. Upon opening of the financial bids, following position was shown, Name of the party Offer in Rs. Status/ Per Card Rank given Smart Chip Limited 49.59 L1 (Respondent No.3) Rosmerta Technologies Limited 59.45 L2 (The Petitioner) Fino Paytech Ltd 69 L3 Silver Touch Technologies Ltd. 72 L4 Kavya data management services 79.29 L5 limited RADIANT INFOSYSTEM PRIVATE 89 L6 LIMITED RICOH INDIA LIMITED 93 L7 UNITED TELECOMS LIMITED 93.6 L8 SREVEN INFOCOM LIMITED 98.1 L9 BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED 103.7 L10 3.2 The event which followed after opening both the bids-technical as well as financial bid as per the Page 10 of 35 HC-NIC Page 10 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT above details, were as under, 3.2.1 The office of the Commissioner of Transport by an e-mail communication dated 11th February, 2015, required all the bidders to submit 10 (Ten) number of sample cards before 5 o'clock 16th February, 2015, further stating that all the sample cards should be as per RFP terms and conditions. It appears that on 15th February, 2015, respondent No.2-GIPL sent the samples of the card to CIPET, Chennai.
3.2.2 On 10th February, 2015, respondent No.2 filed a Caveat Application in this Court.
3.2.3 It appears that the second analysis report was given by CIPET, Ahmedabad wherein same findings occurred, namely that none satisfied the PET:PVC content specification.
3.2.4 Respondents decided to send the sample card of each of the bidders for testing them again, but this time at the Head Office of CIPET, Chennai. According to respondents at the said office of CIPET, the cards could be examined with better infrastructure facilities to test whether they possessed requisite PET:PVC content and composition. After the said decision on 18th March, 2015, sample cards were sent to CIPET, Chennai on 21st March, 2015.
3.2.5 Report of CIPET, Chennai was received on 08th April, 2015 which mentioned about the contents of PET and PVC for cases of all the bidders. The position disclosed in the report was as under.
Page 11 of 35 HC-NIC Page 11 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT Financia Company's OEM Price Code Report Remarks l Rank Name 1 M/s. Syscom 49.59 3 PET:62.65 Meet the Smart Corporatio PVC:37.35 RFP terms Chip n and Limited conditions (Resp. No.3) 2 M/s. SELP India 59.45 6 PET:60.00 Meet the Rosmerta pvt ltd PVC:40.00 RFP terms Technolog and ies conditions Limited (Petition er) 3 M/s. Fino RST semi- 69 8 WAITING Due to Paytech conductors FOR late Ltd. TESTING submission REPORT of sample card 4 M/s. Gemmalto 72 7 PET:58.14 Not Silver Ltd PVC:41.86 meeting touch the RFP Technolog terms and ies Ltd. conditions Not Smart Tech meeting Limited 5 PET:39.02 the RFP PVC 60.98 terms and conditions 5 M/s. Smart Tech 79.29 4 PET:39.02 Not Karvy Limited PVC 60.98 meeting Data the RFP Managemen terms and t conditions Services Limited 6 M/s. RST semi 89 9 WAITING Due to Radiant conductors FOR late Info pvt ltd TESTING submission systems REPORT of sample Private card Limited 7 M/s. SCIT 93 - Not ---- RICOH Limited submitted India Limited 8 M/s. Gemmalto 93.6 2 PET:62.65 Meet the UNITED Ltd PVC:37.35 RFP terms TELECOMS and LIMITED conditions Page 12 of 35 HC-NIC Page 12 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT 9 M/S. ID smart 98.1 - Not ---- SREEVEN card submitted INFOCOM creations LIMITED pvt. Ltd. 10 M/S. Gemmalto 103.7 1 PET:58.14 Not BHARAT Ltd. PVC:41.86 meeting ELECTRONI the RFP CS terms and LIMITED conditions 3.2.6 Thus, as per the said report, respondent
No.3's card was found to have the composition of 62.5 PET and 37.35 PVC. The petitioner's card was tested and was certified to be having the exact 60% PET and 40% PVC. Respondent No.3 was adjudged as L-1 and the petitioner as L-2, as per their respective financial ranks.
3.2.7 On 17th April, 2015 respondent No.3 was given Letter of Intent. Petitioner company objected by addressing letter dated 04th May, 2015 and requested to scrap the tender process. On 07th May, 2015 the Secretary's Purchase Committee (SPC) (IT) approved the rates of respondent No.3. Petitioner made further representation.
3.2.8 On 25th June, 2015 the State Government granted approval for issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.3. Letter of Intent came to be issued on 30th June, 2015 which was accepted by respondent No.3 on 02nd July, 2015. Respondent No.3 appears to have furnished performance bank guarantee in pursuance.
3.2.9 In the present petition filed by the petitioner, this Court passed interim order on 06th Page 13 of 35 HC-NIC Page 13 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT August, 2015 directing status quo in respect of the tender in question.
4. This Court heard learned senior counsel Mr.Mihir Joshi for J. Sagar Associates for the petitioner, learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Sangita Vishen for respondent-State of Gujarat and learned senior counsel Mr.D.K. Singh with learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave for respondent No.3.
4.1 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire procedure on the process of tender allotting to award of Letter of Intent to respondent No.3 suffered from serious irregularities. He submitted that the technical bids were opened wherein all the parties were found technically not qualified, as in the case of none the cards satisfied the necessary requirement as regards PET:PVC content of 60%:40%. It was submitted that instead of closing the process of further consideration, respondents proceeded to open the financial bids. He submitted that the technical bids and financial bids were considered simultaneously which were a procedure unknown to the tendering process, and in particular contrary to the conditions in the RFP. It was submitted that the cards were sent for checking its PET and PVC contents, to Chennai and the results were quite opposite to the checking undertaken at CIPET, Ahmedabad.
4.2 It was submitted that in terms of the
Page 14 of 35
HC-NIC Page 14 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
required PET and PVC contents, which was 60:40 in percentage, the petitioner met with the said technical criteria. Nevertheless, petitioner was not considered and by waiving the requirement of PET:PVC composition, respondent No.3 was given contract though its card did not satisfy the specification. He submitted that if the petitioner had knowledge that the specification regarding PET and PVC percentage in the card was flexible and variable, it may have quoted its rates differently.
4.3 It was next submitted by him that the smart card was defined under Section 2(s) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and that its technical requirement was provided for. He further submitted that the Corrigendum-1 provided for NID approved design, and by referring to the contents pleaded in the affidavit-in-reply that NID's "Coverd Design Details and Specifications Manual for Rajasthan"
provided specifically with regard to the composition for card body. He thereby harped that the said condition was required to be adhered to uniformly and was essential one.
4.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter highlighted the aspects and circumstances detailed in reply of the petitioner dated 20th August, 2015 filed to the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, that the condition as to the specification of composition of % PET and % PVC used for card body was liable to be treated as an essential condition. It was submitted that the respondents crafted the whole Page 15 of 35 HC-NIC Page 15 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT procedure so as to ensure that respondent No.3 stands qualified and is awarded the contract.
4.5 Learned senior counsel buttressed his submissions by relying on the following decisions-(i) Raman Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] and (ii) W.B. State Electricity Board Vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 451].
4.6 Learned Advocate General for respondent No.1 submitted that in the process of consideration of tenders and in ultimately awarding contract to respondent No.3, all the bidders were treated equally. According to him, the technical bids were opened for all and the cards were sent for testing with regard to the PET:PVC content in their body. According to learned Advocate General, thereby they were treated alike. He then submitted that financial bid was opened and since the rate quoted by respondent No.3 was lowest, it qualified to be granted Letter of Intent. He submitted that the respondent acted in public interest. He further submitted pointing out Clause 1(i) in the tender document which stated that the Commissioner of Transport had power to amend or relax the terms and conditions for criteria of the tender document during any stage of the tender process. He submitted that opening of any tender for awarding contract by the State Authorities, should meet with the standard of fairness and for that the Authorities may act flexible in the public interest and in the interest of revenue, and in that context a right is Page 16 of 35 HC-NIC Page 16 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT reserved to select the party for awarding of contract. He submitted that not all the conditions in the tender notice that would require steadfast adherence, but the conditions which are minor or incidental in nature could always be deviated from or may be varied.
4.7 Learned Advocate General pressed into service decision of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1991) 1 SCC 492] for highlighting the principles therefrom that while dealing with the writ petitions involving the award of contract and in particular, when the contract is awarded by a pubic authority or the State, the court has to satisfy itself that there is some element of public interest in entertaining the petition. He submitted that only when the court comes to a conclusion that there is an overwhelming public interest involved in interposing itself in a commercial transaction, it should intervene in the matter.
4.8 Leaned Advocate General relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and ors. [(2007) 14 SCC 517] and by relying on paragraphs 21.4 and 22 thereof submitted that principle propounded by the Supreme Court is that even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and "not merely on the making out of a legal point". He submitted that administrative action such as grant of Page 17 of 35 HC-NIC Page 17 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT tender contract could be reviewed by the court on limited grounds only. He submitted that the purpose should be of checking whether the decision is made lawfully and not to judge whether the choice or decision is sound. According to learned Advocate General in the matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features are required to be born in mind which he highlighted by pointing out the observations in paragraph 22 of Jagdish Mandal(supra).
4.9 Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 in his submissions, at the outset referred to the prayers made by the petitioner, and submitted that there was no prayer for quashing the tender notice. He submitted that what the petitioner sought was only declaration that he may be declared as qualified and the respondent No.3 may not be awarded contract. He submitted that the petition was not a bona fide litigation and was motivated by business rivalry. He referred to the eligibility conditions from RFP document and submitted that the requirements of PET and PVC composition in the card body was not introduced as essential or mandatory condition, nor it was part of technical specification. He submitted that the technical specifications for the smart card were prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and those criteria were satisfied. Therefore, what was stated in Corrigendum regarding composition, submitted learned counsel, was never referable to any indispensable technical requirement or a condition which could not be waived. He submitted that the Page 18 of 35 HC-NIC Page 18 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT petitioner's conduct was self-eloquent as he waited and remained silent upto 04th May, 2015 and only from that date, started addressing letters raising objection. He relied on the Clause in RFP document which permitted variation in the conditions.
4.10 The thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.3 was that the requirement regarding PET:PVC contents of the card was not introduced as a material condition to be complied with. Nor it was, according to him, part of scope of work and technical specifications. According to him the 'smart card' was defined in the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the same was satisfied. He submitted that for non-compliance of the requirement about PET and PVC composition, no consequences were provided, therefore, the same could not be treated as a mandatory condition. He further submitted that when technical bids were opened, the petitioner did not object and he subsequently now filed present petition changing his stance. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 relied on following decisions-
(i) Poddar Steel Corporation Vs Ganesh Engineering Works [(1991) 3 SCC 273], (ii) Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs Union of India [(2002) 6 SCC 315] and (iii) Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited Vs Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Private Limited [(2010) 13 SCC 364] to explain about the material and non essential conditions in a contract, and to submit that for one of the later kind the deviation is permissible. De Smith's Judicial Review (6th Edition) to highlight the concept of 'bad faith' and 'improper Page 19 of 35 HC-NIC Page 19 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT motive' to support his contention that the petitioner's act of filing of the petition was with dishonest motive.
5. Having considered the factual conspectus and the contentions canvassed, it invariably emerges from reading of the Clauses of the tender document, main amongst those pinpointed in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 hereinabove, that theY provided for distinct stages - satisfaction of basic eligibility criteria by the bidder, submission and evaluation of technical bid and the requirement of getting qualified therein, and thereafter opening of the financial bid. The next is the stage of negotiations if required anf finally, the awarding of the contract. The contract was for supply of smart card based licences pre-printed with specifications indicated for the card based on the technological standards, as is already mentioned.
5.1 Now, it could be hardly denied that the requirement to have 60:40 percentage requirement for PET:PVC composition in the card body was a technical requirement. It was not possible to countenance the contention of the respondent that the said requirement did not form part of technical bid. The specification of PET:PVC composition for the card body was provided as part of scope of work which was made part of process of evaluation bid, therefore directly related to the technical requirement. Under Clause 3(iii) of RFP document, it was stated that the technical bid will be examined on the basis of (a) responsiveness to the evaluation methodology, (b) scope of work and (c) Page 20 of 35 HC-NIC Page 20 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT details mentioned in the document, and further that the technical evaluation marking statement of the bidders would be prepared on the basis of the evaluation methodology as aforesaid and compliance thereof. In the next, Clause (v) it was unequivocally provided to make clear that the commercial bids will be opened for the technically qualified bidders only. A bid not meeting any qualification criteria, or not fulfilling the technical evaluation was liable to be disqualified and rejected, further that it was not allowed to be subsequently made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the non-conforming deviation by the bidder. The L-1 bidder was to be judged on the basis of such stages in the evaluation. All the bidders stood disqualified in the technical bids when the same were opened on 7th December, 2014, as the sample cards of none which were tested conformed the PET:PVC requirement asked for, for the card body.
5.2 The condition as regards the PET and PVC composition in the ratio of 60%:40% in the card body was introduced by a Corrigendum-1 as noted above after initial issuance of RFP document. The condition was specific and consciously inserted which was part of scope of work. It was introduced upon such specification required by the expert body-National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad. Respondent No.1 nowhere stated that the said condition-specification was not technical and could be waived or deviated from.
Page 21 of 35
HC-NIC Page 21 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
5.3 In any tender, there may be several
conditions. True it is that all of them need not be subjected to iron-cast compliance. All and sundry standard conditions are not material conditions. For instance, in the decision in Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) relied on by learned counsel for respondent No.3, the requirement prescribed was depositing of earnest money with the tender form either by cash or demand draft drawn on State Bank of India, but the highest bidder submitted banker's cheque certified by Union Bank of India, and the court held that the Government was justified in waiving technical compliance of tender conditions and accepting the banker's cheque.
5.4 While considering question of deviation from the conditions and whether such deviation has resulted into non-transference, non- fairness or arbitrariness, it has to be ascertained whether the condition not complied with or deviated from is an essential condition or non-essential condition. In Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs Union of India [(2002) 6 SCC 315], the Supreme Court stated, "It is settled law that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfilment of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be essential part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term. This legal position has been well explained in G. J. Fernadez vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [1990 (2) SCC 488]." (para 6) 5.5 Therefore, whether the condition as regards the composition of PET and PVC material in the card to Page 22 of 35 HC-NIC Page 22 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT be used for smart card licence was mandatory or minor, was it fundamental or subsidiary and whether it was ancillary condition is a question having significant bearing on the subject matter.
5.6 Under the Central Motor Vehicles (Third Amendment) Rules, 2004 notified by Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways in its Notification dated 10th August, 2004 which were framed under the powers conferred by Sections 27 and 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Clause (s) in Rule 2 was substituted and thereby "smart card" was defined. The said Section 2(s) reads as under.
"(s) "Smart Card" means a device capable of storing data and executing commands which is a microprocessor chip mounted on a plastic card and the dimensions of the card and chip are specified in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electro Technical Commission (IEC) 7816 specifications, as may be amended from time to time, and shall be as per the specifications specified in Annexure-XI."
5.6.1 The Annexure-XI mentioned in Section 2(s) in so far as relevant is extracted herein.
"ANNEXURE XI [See clause (s) of rule 2] I. Smart Card specifications for Driving Licence, Registration Certificate, Regional Transport Office cards, endorsing authority cards, reviewing authority cards, key generation authorities cards, etc.
(a) Microprocessor based Integrated Circuit Card with contacts and with a minimum of 4 kbyte available Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM)
(b) Compliant of ISO/IEC 7816/1, 2 and 3
(c) Compliant to SCOSTA v1.2b, dated March 15, 2002 Page 23 of 35 HC-NIC Page 23 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
(d) Supply voltage 3V nominal
(e) T=0 or T=1 transport protocol
(f) Min 10 years data retention
(g) Min 300,000 EEPROM write cycles
(h) Operating ambient temperature range -25C to +55C
(i) Glossy surface, Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC)/Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic construction with overlay to allow color dye sublimation printing
(j) Smart Cards must have data objects for card sequence no (Tag 5F34) and cards primary account no (Tag 5A) at the Master File level as per International Standards Organisation 7816-6. Once programmed these data objects can not be changed.
II. Specifications of Hand Held Terminals ... ... ...
III Specifications of Dye Sublimation Printer
... ... ...
IV Specifications of Smart Card Reader
... ... ..."
5.7 A technical specification or requirement in
a kind of nature like one under consideration, is normally and ordinarily a material and essential condition. Not only that it is abanduntly clear from the above that the requirement for the card body was a technical aspect and forming part of technical requirement, it was a mandatory condition not permissible to be deviated from, even independently. It was mentioned in the RFP document as it even originally stood unamended, the smart card specification-as per Annexure-V (quoted in paragraph 2.6 and Annexure-VI quoted in paragraph 3.1.2 above), with technical specification as per Clause (s) of Rule Page 24 of 35 HC-NIC Page 24 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT 2 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
5.8 The importance of technical specification in respect of PET percentage was admitted by respondent No.2 in his affidavit in which it produced a copy of communication dated 18th August, 2015 from CIPET, Ahmedabad addressed to respondent No.1-Commissioner of Transport. It stated that higher percentage of PET material results into better performance-life of the card. From the said letter, extracted hereinbelow, the contents about the PET and PVC requirements and its importance is explicit.
"With reference to above, we would like to furnish the following details of regarding the PET and PVC material:
*PET: PET has a high strength at short-time load over a wide temperature range from -60 C to over 20 C. Because of its partial cyrstability the barrier properties of PET are good with respect to gases, aromas and fats and have slightly lower barrier properties against vapor, PET films with thicknesses around 12 am are important substrates in barrier laminates and have wide spectrum of uses, especially for longer times at high temperature over 150C.
*PVC:PVC is resistant to nonpolar (hydrocarbon) and strongly polar substances (water, inorganic acid) Middle polarity compounds such as cyclohexanone, dimethylformamide, acetone, chlorinated, hydrocarbons, tetrahydrofuran, and phenol all either swell or dissolve it. This behaviour can easily be attributed to the slightly polar structure of the PVC macromolecul. PVC is easily degraded through the effect of heat, light and mechanical energy.
(Ref: Plastic Packaging: Interactions with Food and Pharmaceuticals, Edited by Otto G. Pringer and Albert. Baner published by Willey-VCH.
Based on the above functional characteristics of both plastics materials we can conclude that if percentage of PET materials is higher than performance life of card will be better."
5.9 Furthermore, the conduct on part of the Page 25 of 35 HC-NIC Page 25 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT respondents provided adequate, enough and ensuring indications that the requirement of PET:PVC composition in the card was treated as non-negotiable. After the technical evaluation report was submitted by the Chartered Accountants, respondent No.2 GIPL addressed a letter dated 22nd December, 2014 to the Commissioner of Transport seeking approval of the technical evaluation report and further seeking permission to open the financial bid by fixing a date therefor. Respondent No.1, however asked respondent No.2 to send the sample cards for testing them by CIPET, Ahmedabad. Respondent No.2 thereupon by letter dated 09th January, 2015 sent the sample card to CIPET, Ahmedabad stating clearly therein that the bidders were supposed to submit a card matching 60% PET and 40% PVC used for card body and also top polyester patch of 1 (minimum) need to be applied above the thermal durability of printing. The expert body was requested to test the card with reference to the said specific specifications expressly mentioned. As noted, the report of CIPET, Ahmedabad revealed that none of the bidders satisfied the said requirement. Astonishingly, the financial bid was opened at that juncture, and yet the respondent simultaneously chose to send the cards for re-verification to the Chennai branch of CIPET. Emphasising the testing of the card with reference to its PET:PVC content requirement and sending them for testing and re-testing to two branches of CIPET was suggestive of a clear intention on part of respondent to treat the said requirement for the card body as one to be insisted upon as Page 26 of 35 HC-NIC Page 26 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT technical criteria and a condition essential in nature.
5.10 In the context above, the submission of the petitioner was not liable to be brushed aside lightly. Keeping the PVC content in the smart card was with a view to allow colour dye sublimation printing and that the same was necessary in asmuch as in absence of correct composition of PVC, the quality of printing will deteriorate and the details would go disappearing over a period.
5.11 The technical specification in question in respect of the card body material could be said to be material and not minor, substantial and not incidental, fundamental and not subjugatory, mandatory and not directory, also for the reason that it related to the very subject matter of tender contract namely the smart card. It was essential technical requirement since it could be shown to have a necessary connection with the quality, printing facilitation and durability of the cards which were to be used as driving licences.
5.12 Therefore, the say of the petitioner could be accepted that non-adherence to PET:PVC content would make the card substandard and inferior in quality and the correct composition for the card body was required for the durability of the card as well as for lasting of print thereon which would contain the important and sensitive details of the person who would hold his smart card based driving licence.
Page 27 of 35
HC-NIC Page 27 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
Respondent No.1 could not have deviated from the
essential condition under the guise of his powers to vary or alter any term of the tender. The said Clause did not entitle respondent No.1 to give up the condition of tender which in its nature was a mandatory requirement.
6. Though the clauses in the RFP document mentioned herein before, explicitly gave out that evaluation of bids was divided into three stages, that is, the basic qualification criteria, the requirements in and for the technical bid and the financial bid in that order. Respondents manifestly failed to adhere to the process and messed it up. Even as in the terms and conditions of the RFP document, qualifying in technical bid was a stage prior to the opening of financial bid, the procedure was departed from. The technical bid was opened, as per the report of CIPET, Ahmedabad, technical bid of no party satisfied the requirement in question, yet on 7th February, 2015, the tender inquiry was continued and financial bids of all the ten bidders were opened. After opening the financial bids, on 11th February, 2015, the parties were asked to give another set of sample cards which were sent for technical testing to CIPET, Chennai Laboratory. The conduct was incomprehensible and amounted to straying from the route of fairness and transparency.
6.1 Under the terms of the contract, there was no question of selecting a party as L-1 who did not fulfill the technical criteria and technical bid Page 28 of 35 HC-NIC Page 28 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT requirements. The price factor was to be considered post-technical satisfaction. By opening the technical bid as well as financial bid without observance of order of their consideration, and by giving a go-bye to the card body composition requirement treated as mandatory, under the cloak of lower rate offered by respondent No.3, though not fulfilling the card specification criteria, respondent No.3 could not have been selected ranking it as L-1.
6.2 It was indeed tenable and rational also that meeting with the composition specification for the card body and meeting with the said technical essential requirement with its precision would link with cost factor. For obtaining and making the card body meeting with the requisite composition of PET:PVC content in its exactitude, one may have to incur higher cost, then required to be incurred by deviating from and not exacting the composition of PET:PVC. Therefore it was wrong to adjudge respondent No.3 as "L-1" with reference to the price/submitted value ignoring that its bid was non-complaint of the necessary technical qualification regarding the PET:PVC composition in the card body..
6.3 The stand of the respondent No.1 in its affidavit-in-reply, struggled to offer any justification for deviations committed as above, and the stance was indeed wayward, when it was stated, "Events clearly suggest that the offer of respondent No.3 was much better as compared to that of the petitioner company, even while considering other parameters being on equal footing. Nevertheless, the facts remains that the sample card of respondent No.3 Page 29 of 35 HC-NIC Page 29 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT was having PET contents on higher side, i.e. 62.5% as compared to that of the petitioner company, which is to the tune of 60%. However, admittedly, the said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration since the cards of both the Petitioner Company and respondent No.3 were treated to be complaint with the material specifications required for smart cards.
After receipt of the report of CIPET, Ahmedabad, respondent No.1 could have scrapped the whole tender inquiry, which would not have been in benefit of anybody, apart from causing delay in urgent requirement of smart cards for issuance of licences to the general public as well as avoidable expenses and that is how, in the right earnest, it was thought fit to refer the matter to Head Office of CIPET, Ahmedabad i.e. CIPET Chennai which is admittedly having better using infrastructure facilities. In other words, the said requirement relating to material specifications was got tested only with a view to satisfying that the right material is used in the smart card and that is how, the same was never made the part of the eligibility criteria. It is under these circumstances that the percentage of PET contents in both the cases, has not been made basis for the selection of successful bidder, since the cards of both these parties have PET contents. On the contrary, the said factor has been considered as common in both the cases and what has ultimately weighed with the authorities is the price element since admittedly, respondent No.3 is the lowest bidder."
6.4 It was further stated that it was factually incorrect that respondent No.3 had failed to meet the technical qualification. It was the stand that the whole procedure adopted by the Department in getting the PET content checked was in public interest. It was stated that the same was in public interest to ensure that the requisite composition of the said material is present in the card. It was stressed that the said composition was "responsible for the durability of the card to be supplied." But the deponent then turn around to say in the same breadth that "since this aspect of the matter did not carry any weight so far as selection Page 30 of 35 HC-NIC Page 30 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT of successful bidder is concerned, it hardly matters that the same was resorted by having asked for fresh samples from the qualified bidders after opening of financial bid."
7. When after opening of the technical bid, none of the bidding parties found to be the complaint with the requirement of PET and PVC contents, there was no question of proceeding ahead with the tender process. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would have only acted a rational to draw the tender process at that juncture. They did not do so for the reasons best known to them. Instead of discontinuing the process, on one hand the respondents opened the financial bid and on the other hand required the parties to submit the sample again and sent them for re-checking for its PET and PVC contents at CIPET, Chennai. The sending of the cards for re-checking may be out of the consideration that the said condition was uncompromisable and essential, but the conduct was against the norms of fairness. The arbitrariness stared when after receipt of the report from CIPET, Chennai, even though bidder-respondent No.3 was not satisfying the criteria of the composition in question being 60% : 40%, it was selected to the discrimination of the petitioner whose card had been having the requisite percentage composition. It was quite irregular that the steps were taken simultaneously by opening the financial bids even though none had been qualified in the technical bid. The conduct struck at the root and negated the fairness doctrine. Had it been the case that PET : PVC requirement was capable Page 31 of 35 HC-NIC Page 31 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT of being deviated, several other parties might have applied pursuant to the tender notice.
8. In the decision of Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), the International Airport Authority had invited tenders from "Registered IInd Class Hoteliers" having at least five years experience and putting up and running IInd class Restaurant and two snack bars at the airport for a period of three years. The respondent No.4 who selected had experienced relating to catering in canteens for 10 years. The Supreme Court held that in treating respondent No.4 as eligible and treating his 10 years' experience of catering at par with five years' experience as registered IInd class hotelier amounted to treating unequal equally and the action in awarding tender to respondent No.4 offended Article 14. The observation in following paragraph were the pertinent reasons and propositions in law, "Admittedly the standard or norm was reasonable and non-discriminatory and once such a standard or norm for running a IInd Class restaurant should be awarded was laid down, the 1st respondent was not entitled to depart from it and to award the contract to the 4th respondents who did not satisfy the condition of eligibility prescribed by the standard or norm. If there was no acceptable tender from a person who satisfied the condition of eligibility, the 1st respondent could have rejected the tenders and invited fresh tenders on the basis of a less stringent standard or norm, but it could not depart from the standard or norm prescribed by it and arbitrarily accept the tender of the 4th respondents. When the 1st respondent entertained the tender of the 4th respondents even though they did not have 5 years' experience of running a IInd Class restaurant or hotel, denied equality of opportunity to others similarly situate in the matter of tendering for the contract. There might have been many other persons, in fact the appellant himself claimed to be one such person, who did not have 5 Page 32 of 35 HC-NIC Page 32 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT years' experience of running a IInd Class restaurant, but who were otherwise competent to run such a restaurant and they might also have competed with the 4th respondents for obtaining the contract, but they were precluded from doing so by the condition of eligibility requiring five years' experience. The action of the 1st respondent in accepting the tender of the 4th respondents, even though they did not satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility, was clearly discriminatory, since it excluded other person similarly situate from tendering for the contract and it was plainly arbitrary and without reason."(para 34) 8.1 The Supreme Court stated in W.B. Electricity Board (supra) thus, "The controversy in this case has arisen at the threshold. It cannot be disputed that this is an international competitive bidding which postulates keen competition and high efficiency. The bidders have or should have assistance of technical experts. The degree of care required in such a bidding is greater than in ordinary local bids for small works. It is essential to maintain the sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid and also award of a contract. The appellant, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.10 & 11 are all bound by the ITB which should be complied with scrupulously. In a work of this nature and magnitude where bidders who fulfil prequalification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-bye by branding it as a pedantic approach otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the Rule of law and our Constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing Rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the Rule of law should be a casuality. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In our view such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the Rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the Rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that adherence to ITB or Rules is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest."
(para 24)
Page 33 of 35
HC-NIC Page 33 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015
C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is inescapable conclusion that PET-PVC composition requirement of 60% : 40% for the card body was a technical aspect and was part of technical bid. Secondly, it has to be concluded that the composition percentage of PET-PVC in the card was a mandatory and essential requirement. It was a requirement related to the very subject matter of the contract, namely smart card based licence. The composition on PET-PVC content had the direct nexus with the quality of the card, durability of the card and more importantly for facilitation of printing of sensitive details of the licence holder which required to be printed on the card. It was, therefore, an essential and non- negotiable requirement. In allowing deviation therefrom and in granting Letter of Intent to respondent No.3 notwithstanding the fact that its bid deviated from the mandatory requirement of PET - PVC composition, the respondents acted in non-transparent manner, arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. For the reasons and discussion aforestated, the action of respondents in issuing Letter of Intent for awarding contract in question cannot sustain. The Letter of Intent dated 30th June, 2015 and award of contract to respondent No.3 are hereby quashed. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. The respondents are directed to complete the process of tender within a period of two months from today.
Page 34 of 35 HC-NIC Page 34 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015 C/SCA/12306/2015 JUDGMENT (JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 35 of 35 HC-NIC Page 35 of 35 Created On Tue Oct 13 00:25:58 IST 2015