( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) WITH THE CONSENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE parties, THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AT this STAGE ITSELF.

( 3 ) CHALLENGE IN THIS WRIT PETITION IS TO THE decision OF THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (FOR SHORT `ignou ), AN AUTONOMOUS BODY AND RESPONDENT no. 2 HEREIN TO ACCEPT THE BID SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT no. 4 FOR SUPPLY OF COMBINERS/multiplexers. THE PRAYER IN the WRIT PETITION IS FOR REJECTION OF THE SAID BID AND for A DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT the TECHNICAL BID SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

( 4 ) BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX, WHICH HAS given RISE TO THE PRESENT JUDICIAL ACTION, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN JUNE-JULY 2004, IGNOU INVITED TENDERS FOR supply OF COMBINERS/multiplexers FOR COMBINING THE RADIO frequency TRANSMITTER POWER, IN CASCADE; OF TWO OR MORE fm TRANSMITTERS OPERATING ON DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES; FOR feeding TO A SINGLE ANTENNA SYSTEM. THE TENDER WAS TO BE submitted ON THE BASIS OF "two BID SYSTEM", NAMELY, THE "technical BID" AND THE "commercial BID", IN SEPARATE sealed COVERS. THE PETITIONER, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF communication NETWORKS ON GLOBAL BASIS AND CLAIMING TO BE a PIONEER IN THIS FIELD, SPECIALIZING IN MANUFACTURING and SUPPLYING COMBINERS/multiplexers, SUBMITTED ITS BID as PER THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE, ON 16 JULY 2004. THE technical BIDS WERE OPENED ON THE SAME DAY IN THE presence OF ALL THE BIDDERS AND AFTER PRELIMINARY scrutiny, FIVE BIDS WERE SENT TO THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE for EVALUATION. OUT OF THE SAID FIVE BIDS, TWO BIDS WERE rejected AT THE THRESHOLD FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE requisite CONDITIONS. THUS, ONLY THREE BIDDERS WERE LEFT in THE FRAY. THE STAND OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT BID OF respondent NO. 4 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY REJECTED AS they HAD QUOTED FOR TWO SUPPLIERS, NAMELY, RFS AND jampro, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED by THE CHIEF VIGILANCE COMMISSION (`cvc FOR SHORT) VIDE office MEMORANDUM DATED 7 JANUARY 2003 AND, THEREFORE, the TECHNICAL BIDS OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO. 3 were REQUIRED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. THE PLEA OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT WHEN THEY learnt THAT THEIR TECHNICAL BID WAS NOT BEING CONSIDERED because THE VSWR BANDWIDTH MENTIONED BY THEM AS 100 KHZ at SRL. NO. 10 OF ANNEXURE-V OF THE TENDER DOCUMENTS WAS being TAKEN AS + 50 KHZ BY RESPONDENT NO. 2, VIDE LETTER dated 27/28 JULY 2004 THEY CLARIFIED THAT THEIR INPUT AND output PRODUCT HAVE + 100 KHZ BANDWIDTH AND HENCE OVERALL bandwidth COULD NOT BE LESS THAN 100 KHZ ON BOTH SIDES of THE CARRIER. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE bandwidth BEING + 100 KHZ HAD ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN the ELECTRICAL DATA FURNISHED IN THE TENDER DOCUMENTS. IT is ALLEGED THAT AT THE TIME OF EVALUATION OF THE technical BIDS, COMPLETE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN IN THE annexures TO THE TENDER DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE the COMMITTEE DESPITE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER AND ONLY technical CHART PREPARED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 WAS PLACED before THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. THE PLEA OF THE petitioner IS THAT THE HASTE SHOWN IN THE OPENING OF THE "commercial BID" ON 29 JULY 2004 ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE action OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN REJECTING THE TECHNICAL bid WAS ACTUATED BY MALAFIDE. HENCE THE PRESENT WRIT petition.

( 5 ) THE WRIT PETITION IS CONTESTED BY IGNOU. IN THE reply AFFIDAVIT FILED ON ITS BEHALF IT IS STATED THAT THE technical BID OF THE PETITIONER WAS REJECTED BY THE technical COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAD DEVIATED from THE TENDER SPECIFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS: s. NO. TENDER SPECIFICATION petitioner s SPECIFICATION 2. 6 channels BANDWIDTH /vswr BANDWIDTH + 100 KHZ channels BANDWIDTH/ VSWR BANDWIDTH 100 KHZ 4. 1 power MONITORING UNITS power MONITORING IS BY COMPUTER (SOFTWARE BEING PROVIDED) IT IS AVERRED THAT THE ABOVE TWO SPECIFICATIONS being VITAL, THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DID NOT FIND THE above VARIATIONS ACCEPTABLE OR SUITABLE FOR THE requirement OF THE UNIVERSITY. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT the TECHN