Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: GFR in Times Innovative Media Ltd. vs Delhi Transport Infrastructure ... on 2 April, 2013Matching Fragments
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submissions
11. Per contra, Mr. Waziri, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2, who also represents respondent no.1, submits that the award of the contract to respondent no.3 on nomination basis in the circumstances of this case is in accordance with the prescribed procedures and is justified. Reliance is placed on Rule 184 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as „GFR‟) formulated by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, wherein, „Outsourcing by Choice for Procurement of Goods and Services‟ is permitted. The said rule reads as under:
Petitioner's Submission's in Rejoinder
25. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reliance placed upon Rule 184 of the GFR by respondent nos.1 and 2 is entirely misplaced and erroneous. It is submitted that none of the essentials of the said rule exist to justify the award of the contract to respondent no. 3.
26. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 382, Mr. Datta submits that no exceptional circumstances, as enumerated out by the Supreme Court in Para 16 of the said judgment, exist in the present case. The said observations read as under:
63. The justification tendered in the present case for invoking Rule 184 of the GFR - in others words for claiming the existence of an exceptional circumstance for departing from the general principle of awarding the present contract through public tender, cannot be said to be of the nature as contemplated in Al Faheem Meat Exports (supra). A plain reading of the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the records produced before us shows the complete absence of all the elements required to be fulfilled for award of a contract on nomination basis by resort to Rule 184 of the GFR. Neither the respondent authorities have been able to explain as to what were the "exceptional circumstances" to invoke Rule 184 of the GFR nor was the award of the contract in consonance with the advice of the financial adviser.
76. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, as is evident from the record, had been vacillating on the issue whether to award the contract for 319 BQS through tender, or by nomination. This itself shows that there was no grave emergency, and so a clear case for invocation of Rule 184 of the GFR was not made out. In the state of affairs, as aforesaid, invoking Rule 184 of the GFR - (a rule of last resort, which is to be invoked in an exceptional circumstance), and awarding work on nomination basis cannot be said to anything but arbitrary.