Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. According to the petitioners, the third and fourth respondents had not met the eligibility criteria, as mentioned in the tender document and hence, their bids deserve to be rejected. Further, as per the terms and conditions, all the bidders were to submit samples of the models quoted in their bids. The Technical Sub Committee of the first respondent had rejected the equipments brought as samples by the petitioner. The Technical Sub Committee's report dated 11.09.2018 shows that it had tested the equipments of the petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in in terms of Supply, Installation, Testing, Commissioning and Maintenance (SITC & M) of Hi-Tech Labs. The Technical Sub Committee has clearly mentioned that the Thin Client Server were not booting. Then the Thin Client Terminals were also not booting at the time of demonstration. Since Thin Client Server and other equipments were not in order, the same could not be verified by the Technical Sub Committee, including the multi-function printers. The said fact was admitted by the petitioner themselves vide their letter in Ref.SR/ITI CHE/ICT-TN TEXT-2018, dated 07.09.2018, wherein, it is stated by the petitioner that during the demo at the first respondent premises, the display unit of server/thin client and UPS of Demo equipment had gone bad. According to the petitioner, the said equipments were evaluation units and they were being transported extensively for the purpose of demo at different customers locations at various places. During transit, the equipments were disturbed due to mishandling. Even the UPS equipments given for samples were not connecting as admittedly, the necessary accessories like cable connectors were not available at the time of demo.