Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The petitioner has in support of its challenge referred amongst others to an order dated 27/3/2006 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 8460/2006 questioning the requirement of furnishing COP in the tender dated 22/2/2006 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu for implementation of HSRP scheme in the State. The Madras High Court while issuing notice recorded the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General of the State that the tenders would not be finalized for the present and that the petitioner would not be disqualified on the ground of COP. By the said order, the State of Tamil Nadu was restrained from opening the Financial Bids pending further orders. Reference has also been made of a similar tender process initiated in the State of West Bengal wherein the requirement of experience initially incorporated in the notice inviting tender was deleted. Though the challenge thereto before the Calcutta High Court in WP(C) 2083/ 2005 was negated the related SLP(C) 11621/ 2006 by Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. and another against West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and others before the Apex Court is pending and by an interim order, the State of West Bengal has been restrained from awarding the final contract. A declaration in the present case has also been prayed for adjudging the COPs issued by the respondents 3 to 5 to other manufacturers/vendors who have not implemented the HSRP project as illegal, null and void.

35. The respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 amongst other have annexed to their counter an affidavit filed by the West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. in SLP No. 11621/2006 pending before the Apex Court and have pleaded inter alia that the conditions of experience, exposure and expertise were not incorporated in the NIT involved therein so that the price of HSRP was not abnormally engineered by some unscrupulous and dishonest business-men forming caucus and coteries for their own business interest at the cost of the public at large.

54. Referring to the affidavit of the West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation in SLP(C) 11621/2006 pending before the Apex Court, Mr. Dutta highlighted that on the face of the record, the tender process with the conditions of experience and financial involvement in HSRP business fetched much higher rates than those dehors the same, the difference on an average in the offers of the lowest bidder's being Rs. 1000/ - per motor vehicle. The incorporation of these two conditions, therefore, denied the prospect of procuring competitive price(s) for the execution of the project. As the approved test agencies referred to in Rule 50 are possessed of necessary expertise to certify the compliance of the prescriptions thereof and the TAC are issued after subjecting the product to unsparingly rigorous tests, the holders thereof cannot be unreasonably excluded from participating in the process for settlement of the contract of manufacture and supply of HSRP.

58. Relying on the instance of the West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. in SLP (Civil) No. 11621 of 2006, the learned Senior counsel has reiterated that the tender process commenced in the State of West Bengal, sans the condition of experience has drawn much lower rates thereby offering an option to the State to settle for a competitive price to the advantage of the public ultimately required to bear the expenses for the product. The learned Senior counsel has also referred to uproar in the State of Meghalaya against the exorbitant rates on which the contract had been awarded.