Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contended that the reason given to impose ban of an un-disclosed understanding between the petitioner and two other Companies/Firms is clearly erroneous and misconceived. Reference to provisions of Integrity Pact to order ban is unsustainable. The said Integrity Pact is not attracted in present matter. The terms and conditions of Integrity Pact became relevant only after all its ingredients are fully satisfied . By inviting attention to the provisions of Section 2 of the Integrity Pact, it is urged that the purpose of alleged undisclosed understanding or agreement has to be to restrict competitiveness or then to introduce cartelisation in bidding process. In view of Section 3, there should be a further element which puts reliability and credibility of such bidder in question, and then only a ban from future tender process can be thought of, not otherwise.

He invites attention to Section 4 of the said Integrity Pact to contend that Judgment wp224.14 in terms thereof, petitioner has not been disqualified from the tender process, but, the respondents have cancelled the entire tender itself. In this situation, recourse to provisions of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Integrity Pact is unwarranted.

Judgment wp224.14

7. Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has invited our attention to the reply-affidavit. He contends that the petitioner M/s. Techno Precision Engineers and other two companies namely M/s. Precision Components High-Tech Limited and M/s. Support Technologies, are held by same family and their Directors or Partners are also common. Online tenders are submitted by using same computer and their I.P. address is also same. Petitioners accepted terms and conditions of the Integrity Pact and in this situation, when three separate tenders are submitted, the undisclosed understanding or agreement is apparent. He argues that very same person may have uploaded all the tender forms. He further submits that same person namely Shri R.S. Gupta (petitioner no.2 herein), represented petitioner as also M/s. Support Technologies, simultaneously. He therefore, places strong reliance upon the relevant provisions of the Integrity Pact and also on Purchase Manual. He contends that when the tenders were submitted online, petitioners were not aware that total 9 tenders were submitted.

21. Perusal of notice inviting tenders show that Integrity Pact is included as Annexure-F as one of its contents of the tender document.

Note also shows that Annexures- A, B and D are included in the Techno Commercial Bid file, while Annexure-C is included in price bid file. It is further stated that Annexures-AA, BB, E, F and G form part of NIT. These documents show that the Purchase Manual of Coal India Limited is not expressly made the part of NIT. But, then petitioners have relied upon said document, while making complaint against other two bidders on 16.06.2012. Purchase Manual seems to be a general document which is applicable to all supplies. Petitioners and its other concerns also wanted Judgment wp224.14 to supply the cement capsules to Respondents. In facts noted by us above, this clause can also be used against the would be suppliers. When the violation is noticed at an early stage, it is not necessary to wait till signing of a formal agreement in such cases. Equally, Petitioners can not urge that as their mischief is revealed earlier, the provisions of the Purchase Manual can not be used against them. Grievance of petitioners that said clause is not attracted, therefore, seems to be misconceived. Period of ban under Clause 4.7.9 is minimum of three years. Section 3 of the Integrity Pact also enable the respondents to ban petitioners for period between 6 months to 3 years.