( 1 ) THE Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 7th january, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CM No. 152/2002 in CW No. 7077/2001.

( 2 ) THE averment of the Appellant in the writ petition (which is still pending admission) is that Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 invited a Request for Quotation (RFQ for short) on 6/01/2001 in respect of their requirement for conveyor belts. This RFQ pertained to the period 2001-2002 and provided for a "purchase preference" to Public Sector undertakings (PSUs) allegedly to the detriment of the members of the Appellant. The RFQ did not provide for a

"price preference" (as it allegedly should have) for small scale industries such as the members of the Appellant. In other words, it is alleged that the members of the Appellant were losers on both counts, that is, they were not given any "price preference" while their competitors/psus got a "purchase preference".

( 3 ) IN the pending writ petition, the Appellant moved the aforesaid miscellaneous application because on 2 6/12/2001, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 issued another RFQ for the period July, 2002 to June, 2003 for which quotations were to be tendered by 28th January, 2002. This fresh RFQ also made a provision for "purchase preference" but no protection was given to small scale units. It was prayed in the miscellaneous application that Respondent No. 5 should be directed to amend the RFQ to bring it in conformity with government guidelines, by deleting the clauses detrimental to the interests of the Appellant.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge did not grant any ex-parte relief to the Appellant and posted the application for 5th march, 2002, which resulted in an appeal being filed under clause X of the Letters Patent.

( 5 ) GIVEN the urgency in the matter, we heard learned- counsel for the parties on 25th January, 2002 when orders were reserved.

( 6 ) SINCE only an interim issue is before us, we are not inclined to go into the meat of the matter lest it prejudice the Appellant in the hearing of its writ petition.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, in order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to know what is "purchase preference" and "price preference".

( 8 ) THE concept of "purchase preference" is spelt out in Office Memorandum dated 19/01/1993 (which is not on record ). Reference is, however, made to it in Office memorandum dated 31/10/1997 and Office Memorandum dated 14/09/2000. The policy of purchase preference provides for a preference in supply of goods and services to Government departments and PSUs, if the price quoted by the supplying PSU is within 10% of the lowest valid price, other things being equal (subject to a minimum value added content ).

( 9 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the Appellant, the bid of the PSU has to be within 10% of the negotiated bid of the lowest tenderer and not within 10% of the original bid of the lowest tenderer. It was contended that the award of contracts in favour of Respondent No. 6 (a PSU) for the earlier RFQ was not correct since the bid of Respondent No. 6 was not within 10% of the lowest negotiated bid. whether the bid of the PSU has to be within 10% of the lowest negotiated bid or the lowest tendered bid is a matter of interpretation which will have to be decided by the learned single Judge.

( 10 ) HOWEVER, the apprehension of learned counsel for the Appellant is that for the RFQ dated 26/12/2001, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 will again adopt an erroneous interpretation and will consider the bid of a PSU if it is within 10% of the lowest tendered bid and will thereby favour the PSU to the detriment of the members of the appellant.

( 11 ) PRIMA facie, we are not inclined to accept the interpretation given by learned counsel for the Appellant. The bid given by the lowest tenderer provides a fixed benchmark to ascertain if the bid of the PSU comes within the 10% limit postulated by the Office Memoranda. If the. bid does come within the 10% limit, then the purchase preference policy will operate,