JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral)

CMs. APPL 40892-40893/2019 (Exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9892/2019

3. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 accepts notice.

4. We do not think it necessary to serve notice upon the respondent No.2, who is the successful tenderer and has been awarded the tender prior to the filing of the writ petition.

5. With the consent of the parties, we set down the writ petition for final hearing and disposal.

6. The present writ petition arises out of a tender published by respondent No.1 on 10.12.2018 for allotment of 12 Catering Stalls (Special Minor Units-SMU) at New Delhi, Delhi and Anand Vihar Terminal Railway Stations in the Delhi Division of Northern Railways for a period of five years. The date for submission of the tender was 15.01.2019 upto 15:00 Hrs. The tender was to be opened immediately.

7. The petitioner submitted its bid on 12.01.2019 for award of the aforesaid tender and admittedly the petitioner was the highest bidder in the tender. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 was awarded the tender on 09.08.2019. The petitioner claims that he is an experienced bidder and he has been running different stalls in different places which were duly awarded by the Indian Railways. It is also the complaint of the petitioner that the award of the tender in favour of respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary, and moreover, the Railways has failed to furnish any reasons for depriving the petitioner of the tender despite him being the highest bidder.

8. On an advance copy Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel has entered appearance for respondent No.1. He has also produced the original record. Mr. Singh, submits that since the petitioner did not comply with the tender condition no.3.2.1 and 3.5, accordingly the tender was not awarded to him. Reliance is also placed on Annexure 2 Clause 3.5.1, and more particularly to Clause 9 in the said annexure/certificate. Learned counsel submits that the FSSAI certificate produced by the petitioner had expired and another certificate produced by him was in the name of one Sushil Tripathi, and therefore the requirement of an FSSAI certificate was not fulfilled by the petitioner.

9. In response to the submission made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on examination of the FSSAI certificate, it will be seen that the FSSAI certificate is in the name of the petitioner, and the name of Sushil Tripathi has only been mentioned as a nominee; and thus, this ground is not available to the respondent to reject the petitioner's bid.

10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

11. Before taking a view on the rival submissions of the parties, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Clause 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.5, 3.5.1 and also the relevant portion at S.No.9 of Annexure 2, which forms part of Clause 3.5.1, which read as under:

"3.2 Experience of Catering Business(essential)