Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) It is further submitted that, mere suspicion of cartel cannot disqualify the tenderer. According to the learned senior advocate, the respondent/corporation has formed an opinion of the petitioner having formed cartel with other two on grounds viz I. P. address of these three tenderers is the same and that tenders are filled by all the three on the same day within a short span of time. However, out of ten tenders which are received by the respondent/corporation, nine are filled on the 9 wp 3393.16 same day within a span of three to four hours. The petitioner runs a P.C.O. and http facility which is available to public at large and anybody can use the same by paying the necessary charges. The allegation of forming cartel is only on suspicion and is without evidence. Now, the State Government has also removed the condition of I.P. address in tender status. Another ground that all the three have taken bond papers from the same vendor is also erroneous. The tenderer S. P. Jaisingani had taken bond paper at Dondaicha and also executed affidavit on the bond paper at Dondaicha. The petitioner and Skyrail Logistics Pvt. Ltd. have office in the same complex, which is a transport hub having separate offices. Therefore, the bond papers came to be purchased from the same vendor and the same cannot be a ground to infer formation of cartel. Further ground that, in the tender of Skyrail Logistics Pvt. Ltd. document of petitioner is annexed cannot be a ground to hold the petitioner guilty for cartel. The learned senior advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499.