Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.The brief case of the respondents 1, 4 & 5 is as follows:
(i)According to the respondents, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The Bid submitted by the 3rd respondent had crystallized into an Award as early as on 04.03.2017. The petitioner has not preferred to challenge the same, therefore, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petitions have become infructuous.
(ii)According to the respondents, the entire tender process has been carried out in a fair and transparent manner and as a result, a lawful award has been made, which cannot be legally interfered with at this stage. The deadline for online submission of tenders was upto 12.00 hours on 15.11.2016 and the time for opening Technical Bids/Proposals through online was scheduled at 15.00 hours on 15.11.2016. The opening of Technical Bids was further postponed for valid reasons. Finally, when the Financial Bids were opened on 08.12.2016, it was recorded that the following entities had participated in the Bidding Process:

(v)The Writ Petitions have been filed with ulterior motive to scuttle the process of implementation of a lawful award. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petitions after a huge delay, that too, after the final award has been made in the tender. The prayer in W.P.No.7251 of 2017 is for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from issuing the Letter of Award to the 3rd respondent. Since the Award has already been issued on 04.03.2017, the said prayer has become infructuous. The prayer in W.P.No.7252 of 2017 is for declaration that the bids submitted by the 3rd respondent to RFP dated October 2016 is contrary to the tender conditions. Since the said process that had started with Request For Proposal, had already reached its finality, once the Award is made on 04.03.2017, the prayer for declaration does not survive, therefore, both the Writ Petitions have become infructuous in the light of the Award and not maintainable at this stage.

9.Countering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Fr.Xavier Arulraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 4 & 5 made the following submissions:

9.1.The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous for the reason that the bidding had crystallized into an Award as early as on 04.03.2017. The respondents are not duty bound to entertain the representations from any bidder during the tender process as per Clause-2.19 of the RFP. The 2nd respondent has been technically disqualified and is out of the picture from the tender process, hence, there is no question of researching its role in the tender process. There is no ground for disqualifying the 3rd respondent in the tender process. The relationship or contact has to be corporate in nature, if it has to attract disqualification on the ground of Conflict of Interest. There is no common control upto the level of 75% of shareholding for respondents 2 & 3 to fall within the definition of Associates. There is no point in harping that respondents 2 & 3 are related because the 2nd respondent was not a single entity, but a Consortium along with Lazy Tiger, therefore, the interpretation of relationship among the bidders will not apply. The family contacts of the respondents 2 & 3 had not interfered with the process of tender, either by way of forming a cartel or holding down the upset price. The social media material or other documents pertaining to the relationship of the respondents 2 & 3 have no legal meaning or relevance. As there is no substantial violation of any condition of RFP, the successful bidder has to implement the Award. If there is an ambiguity or minor lapses in respect of ancillary conditions, without violating the essential conditions of RFP, the Award can be protected by this Court on the ground of public interest. When two interpretations are possible, the tendering process authority must be left free to give one of the interpretations, without scuttling the tender process.