Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
8. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that respondents 3 to 5 are located in close proximity to one another and are promoted by an extended family. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the tender documents were uploaded from the same IP address, which resulted in the complaint by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ petitioner and appreciating the stand of the petitioner, the Tender Committee had suspected cartelisation between respondents 3 to 5, which has been, prima facie, held to be justiciable even by the vigilance cell on preliminary investigation. Though in normal circumstances, the Tender Committee would not have gone into the IP address of the respondents, but it is only based on the complaint of the petitioner and also the earlier complaint by other entities relating to cartelisation between respondents 3 to 5. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that all the three firms uploaded the tender documents through the same IP address, which clearly establishes cartel formation by respondents 3 to 5.
39. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the interim report, which was provided to the 3rd respondent only showed a cursory finding in which the Tender Committee had opined that the IP address, being unique to a router and no two routers on the network can have the same IP address, therefore, went on to prima facie suspect cartelisation. In this regard, learned senior counsel placed before the Court the affidavit submitted by the internet service provider, viz., M/s.Nikunj Xerox, which has placed on affidavit that their computer and router was used for over 10 companies including respondents 3 to 5, which was the reason for the IP address being common to all the three respondents.
48. Learned senior counsel emphasised that the service provided by an Internet Service Provider in a closed network such as respondents 3 to 5, the IP address of all the persons within the said group would be one and the same, as the service is received from a single source and, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the IP address is the same would reveal cartel formation is too large an ask for this Court to accept. Merely because the IP address is the same for respondents 3 to 5 would not be suffice to hold that respondents 3 to 5 have entered into a cartel formation to defeat the rights of the other tenderers.
75. This Court is not an expert to deal with technicalities as to the manner in which the internet service provider provides connection to an individual. It is well within the domain of the experts. However, this Court is also not a novice to brush aside the fact that each and every router through which the internet service is provided to a particular computer is provided with a unique IP address as the said address is the basis on which the computer is identifiable. The IP address is similar to the residential address or a passport number, which is unique to the occupier of the hours or the holder of the passport. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________