ORDER: The prayer is for a Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the petitioner dated 30.10.2001 while considering the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the third respondent before taking a decision on the award of the handling and transport contract relating to the tender bearing No.H and T/901 (34)/01, dated 26.4.2001.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself was taken up.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is an existing contractor of the first respondent/ Corporation for handling and transport at Inland Clearance Deport at Singanallur, Coimbatore. It was entrusted on an ad hocbasis after calling for tender from various transport contractors, and after considering the comparative merits of the tenders and the technical and financial bids submitted by them. The first respondent/ Corporation is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking. The second respondent is the Regional Manager, who is the authority to call for tenders with regard to entrustment of handling and transport of ISO containers and allied services at the Inland Clearance Depot at Singanallur. The third respondent is another transport contractor competing with the petitioner for the contract work. The third respondent was disqualified on two previous occasions when it submitted its tenders and the tenders were rejected even at the time of opening the technical bid and before opening the financial bid on the ground that it did not have the requisite experience in handling of transport containers. Notice, inviting tenders for handling and transport of ISO containers and allied services at Inland Clearance Depot (ICD) at Singanallur, was issued on 26.4.2001. That was the fourth time, such tenders were called for. On the earlier three occasions, the tender process were cancelled before entrustment of the contract. On the first occasion, the petitioner’s sister concern M/s. Freight Line Services Pvt. Ltd., was the lowest tenderer. However, after opening the technical and financial bids the tenders were cancelled and re-tender was ordered by the first respondent. On the second occasion, the petitioner firm itself participated in the tender and was the lowest tenderer. The third respondent was disqualified after opening the technical bid for lack of experience and equipment. That time also the tenders were cancelled and re-tender was ordered due to certain lapses on the part of the first respondent/ Corporation. On the third occasion, both the tenders, submitted by the petitioner and the third respondent, were rejected for technical reasons. On the fourth occasion, the petitioner and the third respondent participated in the tender and there were 79 items of work as per the schedule. The tenderers were asked to give their rates for each and every times of work. On the opening of the financial bid, it was found that the petitioner had offered lowest rates in respect of 71 items of work whereas the third respondent had offered lowest rate for only 7 items of work and in respect of one time of work the petitioner and the third respondent were placed equally. The second respondent had called upon the third respondent to give a matching rate which would match the rate offered by the petitioner for 71 items of work in respect of which it was the lowest tenderer. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to give a matching offer in respect of 7 items of work for which the third respondent had quoted lower rates. The action of respondents 1 and 2 was arbitrary, ultra vires and against Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is more experienced and an existing contractor in the field. The petitioner, however, to prove its bona fides had voluntarily submitted a matching offer on 30.10.2001 in respect of eight items of work for which the third respondent had originally given a lesser rates. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document