Vijender Jain, C.J. (Oral):- Counsel for the respondents says that there is urgent need of the supply of Weasal Conductors as well as Dog Conductors. He stated that the copy of the counter affidavit has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner but he could not file the same in the Registry. The same is taken on record in Court itself.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the tender had been issued by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam although the same had been issued for the material required by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam. The dispute is in relation to the interpretation of Para 31 of the conditions which is to the following effect:

“Past performance of the firm with Nigam shall be kept in view while deciding the case. The firm should have supplied 80% of ordered quantity of last P.O. in contractual delivery period.”

Both the sides are reading this para in their respective favours.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the NIT had been issued under the signatures of the Deputy General Manager of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vit