Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Petitioner is said to be a leading manufacturer of office automation tables, almirahs, book cases, racks, filing cabinets, compactors, lab. furniture, modular furniture and wide range of chairs of latest design, technology and manufacturing process. The Petitioner says that it is an ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001 certified company and has experience of more than four decades.

2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that a tender notice was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of Delhi for providing modular work staff chairs, tables and compactors for use in the Delhi High Court and the Petitioner was completely overlooked for consideration because the tender notice was with reference to these items manufactured only by Godrej or their authorized dealers. According to the Petitioner, the amount involved in the tender is considerable and there is no reason why established organizations such as the Petitioner should have been overlooked in at least submitting the tender.

3. By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, it appears that the supplies in question had already been made and a substantial part of the payment was also released to Godrej & Boyce. The Petitioner, thereforee, did not seek any substantive relief in the matter or even question the tender process but it was submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court ought to examine whether the process adopted for awarding the contract was correct. This is because repeated tenders of this nature are being issued and the Petitioner has been unfairly excluded from competing in spite of its expertise.

4. Ordinarily, we would have disposed of the writ petition as infructuous on the basis of the statement made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner but since the matter involves the tender process by the Delhi High Court, we were of the view that it would be in the fitness of things to hear the matter since the Petitioner and others are entitled to know whether the process adopted by the Delhi High Court is transparent and fair. No one dealing with the Delhi High Court should have the impression that it is not being treated in an equal manner or is being discriminated against.

5. We have gone through the records of the case as well as the files placed by the Registry of the High Court relating to the tender and we find that reliance has been placed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 on two Circulars issued by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The first Circular is dated 3rd March, 2006 and this reads as follows:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

QUALITY ASSURANCE CORE WING

CPWD, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.

No: CSQ/QACW/G-2/83 Dt: 3.3

Circular No. 17 Sub: Use of approved/branded materials in the works.

Instructions have been issued vide Directorates OM No. DGW/CON/184 dt: 28.8.03 to indicate makes/brands of the items to be used on work, in the agreement of the work. While preparing such a list, following guidelines may be followed:

(i) For some of the items there is a large variation in the market rates of various brands and there is a tendency to use the cheapest brand. While incorporating such a list in the NIT, Technical Sanctioning Authority must ensure that the market rate variation between various brands of a particular item (when product of various brands are functionally equivalent) should be minimum and not more than-10%.

If client demands a particular brand of an item to be provided in a work due to some special reason, it should be obtained in writing from them with reasons for going for a particular brand and that brand may be specified before hand in the NIT by the Technical Sanctioning Authority after obtaining proprietary certificate from competent authority.

.(ii) The final approval of the brand to be used shall be the discretion of Engineer-in-Charge. The brand used shall be one of the brands specified in the list of approved materials attac