Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioner herein, a subsidiary of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., is engaged, inter alia, in the business of displaying advertisements on various outdoor medium including, but not limited to, advertisement spaces at various airports, BQS, hoarding sites etc. It claims to have been certified by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) for showing good performance in installing and maintaining BQS; and by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) for successfully performing Build Operate Transfer (BOT) contracts in respect of BQS and recognising its performance as being at par with „International excellent standards‟.

Petitioner's Submissions

7. It is the petitioner‟s case that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have consistently acted arbitrarily and indiscriminately in awarding BOT contracts in respect of BQS. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishnendu Datta submits that, while in some cases, the said respondents chose to float tenders, in the present case, the respondents preferred to grant contract on nomination basis.

8. Mr. Datta places reliance upon the „Performance Audit Report‟ on the Commonwealth Games-2010 of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG), wherein it has been observed that for getting 1500 BQS constructed before the Games, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and respondent No. 1 resorted to various methods of execution, which indicated arbitrariness, ad hocism and lack of clarity in implementation.

14. Mr. Waziri submits that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have in the past experienced numerous and consistent failures in the award of BOT contracts in respect of BQS by way of public tender. In this regard, reference is made to the following instances in the synopsis filed by him:

(i) July 2007: M/s Green Delhi failed to pay full concession fee for 200 BQS of the 248 constructed by them after signing of the agreement dated 26th July 2007. The violation of terms became subject matter of litigation before this Court.

17. Mr. Waziri submits that on a preliminary scrutiny, it was discovered that there were not many agencies that would fulfill such criteria and there was no guarantee that other agencies would be able to perform at the same level as compared to the company already maintaining BQS in the NDMC area, especially given the previous experience of the awarded tenders, as well as lack of response in earlier attempts to entrust this work to any particular agency.

18. Mr. Waziri submits that identification of respondent no. 3 for the purpose of award of the BOT contract in question was done on the basis of proven track record of work done by respondent No.3 in the NDMC area for the past six years. Since respondent no. 3 had been maintaining the BQS in the NDMC area with efficiency and quality, on which the cabinet had expressed its satisfaction, it became the obvious choice to perform the works under the present contract.