(June 1, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125033

2001-DLT-92-586 :: 2001-AD (Del)-5-258

ALCATEL INDIA LIMITED Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

ANIL DEV SINGH

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11/05/2001 in Civil writ Petition No. 1440/2001. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-

"the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, (for short the mtnl ) in order to expand its "managed Leased Line Data network (MLDN) in Delhi and Bombay units, issued a notice inviting tenders (for short nit) on 19th june,-2000".

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the NIT, the appellant on 31/07/2000 submitted its tender and also deposited the bid security. Certain other parties also submitted. their tenders. The tender Evaluation Committee shortlisted the appellant and two others, namely, ITI and HTL. On 8/09/2000, a letter of intent (LOI) was issued to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant on 12/09/2000 communicated its acceptance to supply the requisite equipment to the m. T. M. L. On the next day, viz. , 13. 9. 2000, the appellant furnished the requisite bank guarantee for due performance of the work to the respondent-HTML, but the latter did not issue the Purchase Order. Thereupon, not having received the purchase order, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

" (A) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no. 1 herein to immediately issue the necessary Purchase Order, on the face of the concluded contract between the parties herein; (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no. 1 to honour and comply with the requirements as embodied in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 19. 6. 2000, its annexures and all other documents executed by the parties herein. "

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge a statement was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the respondent had decided to scrap the tender in question and it. will issue a "new tender notification", if need be. In view of the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the same having been rendered infructuous. The appellant being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned single Judge has filed the instant appeal.

( 4 ) DR. A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the LOI was placed on the appellant after the Tender Evaluation Committee had approved the. tender of the appellant. According to him, neither the Telecom engineering Centre (for short- the TEC ) nor the Board committee which examined the matter subsequently recommended scrapping of the tender. He argued that the tender has been scrapped on extraneous considerations. In this context he pointed out that after the LOI of the appellant was accepted the matter was reopened on receipt of a letter from a Member of Parliament.

( 5 ) WE have given our earnest consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel, we have also gone through the file produced by the M. T. N. L. regarding the MLDN Equipment Procurement Case. We find that after the report of the Tender Evaluation Committee the tender of the appellant was re-examined by the TEC. The TEC in its report pointed out certain deficiencies in the appellant s bid. Subsequent to the report of the TEC, a board Committee was constituted by the Chairman of the first respondent to examine the tender of the appellant. The committee after a detailed review concluded, that the bid was not fully compliant in respect of certain items of technical requirement.

( 6 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, we cannot find fault with the action of the first respondent in scrapping the tender. The purchaser cannot be compelled to purchase an article from a supplier especially when the purchaser finds that the article is not suitable for its