SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 1216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
E.Padmanabhan, J.
Indital Construction Machinery Ltd., Bangalore
Versus
Union of India and another
W.P.No.16373 of 1997
Decided on : 3rd November, 1997

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
V.V.Lakshminarayanan, for Petitioner.

Stipulation of statutory body cannot be held violative of Article 14.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Articles 12 and 14—Tenders for purchase of one top lift truck/Reach stoker invited by statutory body on the stipulation that tenderer should have manufactured and supplied twenty five similar machines—Held, stipulation not arbitrary.

ORDER:

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the condition imposed by the respondents 2 and 3 in the contract Form Tender dated 11.9.1997 in Ref.E.(M)EE/CHER/F 57 in Schedule ‘A’ special conditions of Tender for supply condition I sub clause (iii) that the Tenderer should have manufacturer and supplied 25 Nos. of similar machines during the last 5 years as arbitrary and imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner and violative and ultra vires of the Constitution and issue other appropriate relief.

2. The Tuticorin Port Trust invited tenders for the purchase of one No. Top Lift Truck Reach Staker with adjustable spreader to handle containers weighing 35T/40t respectively. The petitioner purchased the tender schedule from the 3rd respondent. In terms of the special conditions on tender supply, certain conditions have been imposed by the respondents 2 and 3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein do not possess the stipulated pre-qualifications for submitting the tender.

3. The petitioner challenges the stipulation or conditions prescribed in the qualification to take part in tender. The relevant portion of the tender condition reads thus:

“(i) The equipment offered should be of internationally proven model of reputed manufacturer and known for their reliability.

(ii) The tenderer should have after sales service facility in India.

(iii) The tenderer should have manufactured and supplied 25 Nos. of similar machines during the last 5 years.

(iv) In case of foreign manufacturer/supplier, in addition to satisfying the above three conditions atleast 5 Nos. of similar machines should have been supplied and working satisfactorily in India.

The offers which do not satisfy the above conditions will not be considered.”

4. Of the above conditions, the petitioner is aggrieved by the stipulation No.3 by which the respondents have stipulated specifically that the tenderer should have manufactured and supplied 25 numbers of similar machines during the last five years. This stipulation is being challenged as unconstitutional and arbitrary. In my considered view, such contention is not tenable.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that there is no manufacturer in India who could satisfy this stipulation and the petitioner is the sole manufacturer of Top Lift Truck with adjustable spreader to handle containers at any rate India and he had not so far supplied 25 numbers of similar machines and his supply is very less. As such it is apprehended mat the petitioner's tender would be rejected at the thresh-old and it will not be considered, though the rate the petitioner may quote will be far less than others.

6. The condition No.3 which reads thus:

“The tenderer should have manufactured and supplied 25 Nos. of similar machines during the last 5 years”.

cannot be said to be arbitrary and it applies to all the tenderers. If a particular tenderer has not satisfied the stipulation contained in Schedule A. the tender shall not be considered at all and it cannot be said that such stipulation is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

7. The Port Trust has got the authority to stipulate the conditions and also the qualifications of the tenderers as according to them, the machine they supply should be prescribed standard, viz., the top Lift Truck/Reach Staker with adjustable spreader to handle containers, weighing not less than 35T. This stipulation cannot be said to arbitrary or illegal or unwarranted.

8. When the stipulations have been made clear and when there being no deviation it cannot be said that’ the stipulation is arbitrary.

9. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India , A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628:(1979)2 S.C.C. 489 it has been held that it is open to the authorities to stipulate conditions which they may choose depending upon the requirement of prescribed standards and such eligibility cannot be said to be arbitrary. The Apex Court has held thus:

“Now there can be no doubt that wh
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top