1. 1. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board vide tender notice No. TNM-16 on 22.4.2000 invited sealed tenders from manufacturers/suppliers having experience of protection system including designed, engineered, manufactured, supplied, erected, tested and commissioned at least one No. fire detection and protection system comprising of outdoor and indoor hydrant system, automatic IHW, MVM spray system and micro processor based fire detection and alarm system with conventional non-addressable detectors and addressable zone interface modules fire detection system and supply of portable fire extinguishers of soda acid.

2. The petitioner company in response to the said tender notice applied for and obtained tender documents from the then existing Rajasthan State Electricity Board and has submitted his bid in response to the tender notice No. TNM-16.

3. In clause 2.01.00 of the tender document certain conditions provided that the bidder should have designed, engineered, manufactured, supplied, erected, tested and commissioned at least one (1) No. each of the fire detection and protection systems and such plants must be designed to the recommendations of the Tariff Advisory Committee of India or any other internationally reputed authority and must be in successful commercial operation, for at least 2 years on the date of opening of the tender document, and indoor hydrant.

4. The last date for submitting the bids in response to the tender notice No. TNM-16 was extended by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board from time to time. In the meantime, RSEB came to be bifurcated into five companies and the Suratgarh Thermal Power Station including Stage-II thereof came to fall within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., one of the five succeeding companies.

5. The petitioner company submitted its bids in response to the tender document under specification No.99x03-SPC-M-2801.

6. Vide letter dated 31.7.2001 the Superintending Engineer (TD-H) of the respondent Nigam required the petitioner company to depute its fully authorised representative for techno-commercial discussions at Jaipur on 3.8.2001. The petitioner company has given the details of its experience in job of evaluation of more than Rs. 2 crores of similar nature as per pre-qualification clause of tender document.

7. Vide letter dated 1.9.2001 the petitioner was asked to submit the revised price bid in sealed cover and same has been given by the petitioner on 10.9.2001.

8. The Tariff Advisory Committee (General Insurance) has issued a Fire Protection Manual on fire protection techniques and to encourage installation of fixed fire extinguishing appliances/alarm systems.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since petitioner company carried out jobs on turnkey basis in industries, such as CNG compressing and bottling plants and LPG bottling plants which are classified as risk similar to industries such as petroleum refineries, ammonia and urea synthesis plants under high risk categories.

10. As per clause 2.01.00 of the specifications as amended by the respondent Nigam, the petitioner company its dated 24.9.2001 addressed to the Chairman of the respondent Nigam pointed out that the terms of the specifications were not being properly construed and instead of assessing the capabilities of the bidders, innovative ways and means were being worked out to disqualify capable bidders on flimsy grounds.

11. The petitioner has stated hereinabove that the plant involving liquefied petroleum gas was categorised as the most hazardous along with four such more similar industries viz. petroleum refineries, LNG storage and explosive factories by the Tariff Advisory Committee in the Fire Protection Manual and he referred Clauses 7.2.1 and 7.2.3 and also referred Table 1 of Clause 7.3.6 of the Fire Protection Manual.

12. Mr. Alok Sharma further submits that in spite of its requisite experience of having executed over a dozen jobs, each involving over Rs. two cror