W.P.No.1123/2018 :

The petitioner challenged the order of the first respondent dated 12.01.2018, informing that their tender was found non responsive under Rule 28 of the Tamilnadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 and clause 12(d) of the tender document. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to open the price bid of the petitioner for consideration by proceeding from that stage afresh.

2. The Case of the petitioner in short is as follows:

(a) The petitioner Company is a leading manufacturer of bicycles, etc., The petitioner successfully participated in tenders and supplied over 5 lakhs quality bicycles for school children of various state Governments. The first respondent called for tender dated 15.10.2017 to supply boys and girls bicycles. A pre bid meeting was held on 01.11.2017, where the petitioner requested to amend the eligibility conditions to enable the petitioner to bid for the tender. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 10.11.2017, whereby the petitioner along with certain other companies were found eligible. The tender has to be submitted in two covers one containing the technical cum commercial bid and the second one containing the price bid. The petitioner confirmed to all the conditions set out in the tender conditions and handed over the bid documents in the manner prescribed. Similarly, the price bid was also submitted in the manner prescribed. The tender also required submission of samples which must confirm to the prescribed ISI specification. The submission of sample bicycles was also duly carried out by the petitioner. After opening of the technical bid, it was informed that evaluation of the technical bid documents and testing of samples by Chemical Testing and Analytical Laboratory, Guindy will be carried out. There were five other participants apart from the petitioner. When the petitioner was anxiously awaiting for a communication calling upon them to be present for the opening of the price bid, to their shock and dismay, the other four bidders were invited to be present on 11.12.2017 for opening the price bid, while the petitioner was not issued with any such communication either rejecting the technical bid or calling for any clarifications.

(b) Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32459 of 2017 for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from finalizing the tender. During the pendency of the above writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected for certain trivial reasons. Thus, the order dated 12.01.2018, rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner was received by them on 12.01.2018 by e-mail. The technical bid of the petitioner was very much in order and for trivial, flimsy and malafide reasons, it has been rejected, while similarly placed persons have been permitted to take part in price bid. The reason set out in the impugned order for rejection of the boys bicycles tender is that the bell which has been fixed is a normal ding dong one and not a geared bell, has no meaning at all because the said bell is not an essential part in functioning of the cycle and the whole sale cost of the geared bell is only about Rs.21/- as against the cost of the ding dong bell which is priced at Rs.23/-. Further more, the bell has no role in movement of bicycles or its technical parameters. The impugned order has not taken note of the fact that the bell provided by them in boys and girls cycles were the geared one and in order to somehow reject the technical bid of the petitioner, the bell has been switched and a non-geared bell was fixed. The respondents ought to have verified the videograph which was taken at the submission of the cycles to come to a conclusion that the bell has been switched in order to reject the tender of the petitioner.

(c) Likewise, the other reason is that the sticker has n