The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority's competence to cancel the tender process, the legality of reverting to the original procurement method, and the parameters of tender notice and the authority's power in awarding contracts.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. All the writ petitions by and between the same parties pertaining to the same matter impugning the action consequential to one another, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For convenience sake, the three writ petitions are described as first, second and third writ petition. The first writ petition was filed making a grievance against the cancellation of the tender process initiated for 'supply and application of paints' initiated by the respondent Corporation. In response to Annexure-1 NIT dated 09.12.06, the petitioner offered its bid. Being technically fit, it was invited for price negotiation and even after two rounds of negotiations when the desired result was not obtained, the respondent corporation by its impugned Annexure-3 letter dated 18.04.07 intimated the petitioner about the failure of the negotiation and as to how the rates offered by it were in the higher side. Upon such failure, the tender process was cancelled. After such cancellation, the respondent Corporation initiated limited tender process for supply and apply of paints vide Annexure-7 limited tender dated 04.08.07. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the first writ petition.

3. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 17.08.07 this Court directed to maintain the status quo with regard to the fresh tender process. However, the interim order passed was vacated by order dated 14.09.07 noticing that the tender process initiated vide Annexure-7 limited tender dated 04.08.07 was in respect of a different job. While vacating the interim order, it was, however, observed that the plea of the petitioner with regard to the validity of the impugned order of cancellation would be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

4. During the pendency of the first writ petition, occasion for the petitioner to file the second writ petition arose when the respondent Corporation floated Annexure-10 NIT dated 25.09.07 inviting the bids for the job "application of paints". Occasion for the petitioner to file third writ petition arose when the respondent Corporation floated Annexure-11 NIT dated 05.11.07 for the work "supply of various types of paints". In both the writ petitions the plea of the petitioner is that when the matter relating to cancellation of the earlier NIT was sub-judice in the first writ petition, the respondent Corporation could not have issued the impugned NITs frustrating the first writ petition. In both the writ petitions this Court passed interim order to the effect that while the respondent Corporation would be at liberty to proceed with the tender process pursuant to the impugned NITs, but would not finalise the same without the leave of the Court.

5. The respondent Corporation has filed their affidavits in opposition in all the three writ petitions. In the first writ petition their plea is that since the rates offered by the petitioner were in the higher side, its representative was called for negotiation and even after two rounds of negotiations when the petitioner failed to reduce the rates reasonably, the respondent Corporation had no option than to cancel the NIT. It has been stated in the affidavit that the rates offered by the petitioner was found to be higher side by 18.90% than the estimated rates and even after negotiation same remained in the higher side although there was some reduction on the part of the petitioner pursuant to the negotiation. The variation is stated to be between 15% to 16%.

6. In the other two writ petitions, the plea of the respondent Corporation is that after cancellation of the NTT in the first writ petition, the Corporation reverted back to its earlier policy of procuring the materials directly from the manufacturers and to get the job of application of paints done through the contractors unlike the NIT in the first writ petition by which both the jobs were sought to be done through tender process confining the same