( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges the action of respondents 1 to 4 ordering fresh price bids in respect of supply of Digital wireless Interpretation System in the Parliament Library Building and further seeks the grant of the said contract on account of its bid being the lowest and its fulfilling all the qualifications prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition avers as under: the petitioner is a Company which has German collaboration and its German Principles are the leading manufacturers of Conference Public Address System renowned all over the world. The respondent No. 1 is Union of India; respondent No. 2 is the Director General (Works), CPWD, New delhi; respondent No. 3 is the Chief Engineer, Parliament library Project, CPWD , New Delhi, respondent No. 4 is the executive Engineer, Parliament Library, CPwd, New Delhi, respondent No. 5 is M/s Hi-Tech Audio System Pvt. Ltd. , New delhi, respondent No. 6 is M/s Sonic Internatioinal, Delhi and respondent-No. 7 is M/s Philips India Ltd. , New Delhi. The petitioner is already a supplier to Lok Sabha, Rajya sabha, Vigyan Bhavan, vidhan Sabha, Bhopal etc. The petitioner was prequalified by the respondent No. 4 on 29th of March,2000 for the installation of a Simultaneous interpretation System and Conference System in the auditorium and Committee Halls in the Parliament Library. Pursuant to the procurement of requisite papers by the petitioner Company on 8. 6. 2000 the Meeting of the Technical committee was called by the respondent No. 1 which was attended by representative of respondent No. 2 as well as the representative of ail the proposed bidders. Various clarifications were given to the bidders. The petitioner submitted its tender on 26th of June, 2000 in two different envelopes - one containing the technical and unpriced cover and the other containing the commercial bid alongwith its letter dated 26. 6. 2000. There were in all 5 bidders apart from the petitioner and eventually the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 were declared qualified. In response to a Letter dated 12th of September, 2000, received from respondent No. 3 asking for certain information alongwith catalogue and specifications of the equipment meeting the NIT specifications, the petitioner by its Letter dated 22. 9. 2000 furnished the clarifications and the details asked for by the respondent No. 3. Another Letter was received on 3. 11. 2000 from respondent No. 3 regarding confirmation for the systems description. The petitioner responded by its Letter dated 11. 11. 2000 to the above and demonstrated its equipment on 22. 11. 2000. The petitioner further confirmed the systems description by its Letters dated 27. 11. 2000 and 29. 11. 2000. On 1. 12. 2000 a letter was written to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 informing that the technical and the commercial issues had been reviewed and the final requirements of the Department were set out in detail in the said letter dated 1. 12. 2000. The bidders were asked therefore to resubmit their confirmation letter with technical information in one envelope and revised price/rates in a separate sealed envelope. The petitioner vide its letter dated 5. 12. 2000 submitted the clarifications sought by the respondent No. 3 alongwith the revised bid. The new price bid was opened on the date and time fixed and the petitioner s bid for Rs. 2. 24 crore was declared as L-1. The bid of the respondent No. 5 was for rs. 2. 49 crore; the bid of respondent No. 7 was for Rs. 3. 53 crore and the bid of respondent No. 6 was for Rs. 3. 54 crore. The petitioner complied with all the additional requirements and the suggestions which the respondent No. 3 wanted within the price offered by it and also offered to absorb all additional costs which may be necessitated by any other requirement of the petitioner within the price quoted. Even thereafter on 16. 2. 2001 the respondent No. 4 raised further queries and sought a different kind of digital Panel with up