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

2000 Supreme(MP) 783

2001 (2) JLJ 81
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
Optel Telecommunications Ltd. v. Union of India and others
L.P.A. No. 209 of 2000; against the order of Single Bench, passed in Writ
Petition No. 3406 of 2000; Decided on. 25.8.2000.

Advocates:
V.K. Tankha with Shobhit Aditya for appellant; Mukund Rohatgi with
O.P. Namdeo for respondents No.1 to 3; Rajendra Nayyar, Ravindra
Shrivastava and Sukesh Mukherjee for interveners.

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- contractual powers of Government principles of judicial review would apply to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. (1994) 6 SCC 651 followed. [Para 10

        (2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- award of contract -- is essentially a commercial transaction -- Court may see public interest and malafide of the transaction. (1999) 1 SCC 492 followed. [Para 10

        (3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- tender by State -- it can fix its own terms of invitation -- Court can examine decision making process.

        In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The state can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and the is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations, before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.

        But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though said decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. (2000) 2 SCC 617 followed. [Para 11

        (4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- amendment made in tender before submissions of bids -- scope of participation enlarged -- uniformly applicable to all bidders -- rightly not interfered with being not arbitrary, etc.

        The respondents considered representations by interested parties and took decision at the highest level before making the amendments to the bid document. These were intimated to prospective bidders. To facilitate them in preparing their bids after taking into consideration the amendments, time was extended. Power to make amendment is there in the bid documents. It has been exercised on representations by parties. Result of amendment is that it has enlarged the scope for participation by more bidders. Amendment has taken place before any of the bidders had submitted the bid documents. It was uniformly applicable to all bidders. With this background, it is difficult to hold that amendment was carried out with a view to eliminate the petitioner and benefit the new bidders. [Para 12

       Unless the decision is arbitrary, malafide and against public interest, judicial scrutiny is not possible. Court cannot examine the merits of the decision. [Para 13

       ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-226&ljdkj dh lafonkRed ‘kfDr&euekuh vFkok i{kikr ds fuokj.k ds fy, U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ds fl)kar ykxw gksaxsA ¼1994½ 6 ,l lh lh 651 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 10

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-226&lafonk çnku fd;k tkuk&lkjr% okf.kfT;d laO;ogkj gSa&Uk;ky; }kjk yksd fgr rFkk laO;ogkj dk vln~Hkko ns[kk tk ldrk gSA ¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 492 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 10

       ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-226&jkT }kjk fufonk&mlds }kjk vkea=.k ds vius fuca/ku fu;r fd, tk ldrs gSa&Uk;ky; }kjk fo‘p;kRed çfØ;k dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       okf.kfT;d fofu‘p;u ds fy, ftu ckrksa ij lokZf/kd /;ku fn;k tkrk gS og okf.kfT;d ckrsa gksrh gSaA jkT; }kjk fofu‘p;u dh viuh i)fr fudkyh tk ldrh gSA mlds }kjk lafonk ds vkea=.k ds vius fuca/ku fu;r fd, tk ldrs gSa rFkk mldh U;kf;d laoh{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA mls fn, x, çLrkoksa esa ls ,d Lohdkj djus dk vafre fofu‘p; djus ls iwoZ mlds }kjk ckrphr dh tk ldrh gSA lafonk çnku djus ds fy, lnk dher ,dek= dlkSVh gks] ,slk vko‘;d ugha gSA ;fn fufonk ds fuca/kuksa esa ,slk ‘kSfFkY; vuqKkr gks rc ln~Hkkoiw.kZ dkj.kksa ds fy, jkT; }kjk ‘kSfFkY; çnku fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       ijarq jkT;] mlds fuxe] ifjdj.k rFkk vfHkdj.k muds }kjk vf/kdfFkr lfUu;eksa] ekunaMksa rFkk çfØ;kvksa dk vuqlj.k djus dks ck/; gSa rFkk og muls euekus rkSj ij fopfyr ugha gks ldrsA ;|fi mDr fofu‘p; U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ds v/;/khu ugha gSa rFkkfi vln~Hkko] v;qfDr;qDr rFkk euekuh ls nwf"kr ik, tkus ij U;k;ky; }kjk fofu‘p;kRed çfØ;k dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2000½ 2 ,l lh lh 617 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 11

       ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-226&cksfyksa ds fuosnu ls iwoZ fufonk esa la‘kks/ku fd;k x;k&lgHkkfxrk dk foLrkj c<+k;k x;k&leLr cksyh yxkus okyksa dks leku :Ik ls ykxw gksxk&euekuk vkfn ugha gksus ds dkj.k Bhd gh gLr{ksi ugha fd;k x;kA

       çR;FkhZx.k }kjk fgrc) i{kdkjksa ds vH;kosnuksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k rFkk cksyh nLrkost esa la‘kks/ku djus ls iwoZ mPpre Lrj ij fofuf‘p;u fd;k x;kA ;g la‘kks/ku Hkkoh cksyh yxkus okyksa dks çKkfir fd;k x;kA la‘kks/kuksa ij fopkj djus ds Ik‘pkr muds }kjk viuh cksyh rS;kj djuk lqdj gks lds blfy, le; c<+k;k x;kA la‘kks/ku djus dh ‘kfDr cksyh ds nLrkostksa esa nh xbZ gSA mldk ç;ksx i{kdkjksa }kjk vH;kosnu fd, tkus ij fd;k x;k gSA la‘kks/ku dk ifj.kke ;g gS fd mlls cksyh yxkus okys vf/kd O;fDr;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk }kjk foLrkj c<+k;k x;k gSA cksyh yxkus okyksa ds Hkh }kjk cksyh nLrkost fuosfnr fd, tkus ls iwoZ la‘kks/ku gqvk gSA og leLr cksyh yxkus okyksa dks leku :Ik ls ykxw FkkA bl i`"BHkwfe esa] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk dfBu gS fd la‘kks/ku] ;kph dks vyx dj u, cksyh yxkus okyksa ds Qk;ns ds fy, fd;k x;k FkkA ¿iSjk 12

       tc rd fofu‘p; euekuk] vln~Hkkoiw.kZ rFkk yksdfgr&fo#) ugha gks] U;kf;d laoh{kk laHko ugha gSaA U;k;ky; }kjk fofu‘p; ds xq.kkxq.k dk ijh{k.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 13

JUDGMENT

Bhawani Singh, -- 1. These Letters Patent Appeals (LPA No. 209 of 2000 - Optel Telecommunications Limited v. Union of India and others, LPA No. 210 of 2000 - Optel Telecommunications Limited v. Union of India and others and LP A No. 211 of 2000 Optel Telecommunications Limited v. Union of India and others) are directed against order of the learned Single Judge dated August 4, 2000 dismissing the three writ Petition Nos. 3406/2000,3407/2000 and 3408/2000 filed by the appellant/petitioner.

2. Petitioner Optel Telecommunications Limited is subsidiary of the M.P. State Electronics Development Corporation, an Undertaking of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with registered office at E-1 New Industrial Area Phase II, Mandideep (Raisen). It manufactures Optical Fibre Cables, Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled Cables and related accessories. Manufacturing of Optical Fibre Cables started in 1989 and it is a major supplier to various Government Departments including the Department of Telecommunications and other organisations. Optical cables of various sizes produced by it are consumed by the Department of Telecommunications to the extent of 95% of the production.

3. Department of Telecommunications (hereafter DOT) floated open tenders for procurement of Optical Fibre Cables of different sizes/varieties on different dates. For supply of. 56000 Kms of 12F Optical Fibre Cables, tender notice was issued on January 28, 2000. The last date of issue of tender document was 24.3.2000 till 10.30 hours and was to be opened on the same day at 11.00 hours. By notice dated 21.3.2000, the date of opening of tender was postponed to 10.4.2000 at 11.00 hours. By amendment dated 28.3.2000, delivery rating formula has been changed. - W.P. No. 3406 of 2000. Tender notice for supply of 9000 kms of 24-F Optical Fibre Cables was issued on 7.1.2000. Last date for issue of tender was 14.3.2000 till 10.30 hours and the tenders were to be opened on the same day at 11.00 hours. However, by notice dated 10.3.2000, the date of opening of tender was postponed to 29.3.2000. The mode of calculation of delivery rating was similar to the tenders issued earlier. By amendment dated 23.3.2000, delivery rating formula has been changed. W.P. No. 3407 of 2000. By another tender notice for supply of 403 lac kms of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled Cables was issued 4.2.2000. The last date of receipt of tender was March 30, 2000 at 10.30 hours. It was to be opened on the same day at 11.00 hours. By amendment dated 23.3.2000 the delivery rating formula has been changed. Challenge to delivery rating formula is common to the other writ petitions. - W.P. No. 3408 of 2000.

4. The DOT issued an amendment F. No. 11-03/2000-MMT (SW) dated 23.3.2000 making certain major modifications in the tender conditions with a view to favour some new entrants. These new entrants are extended undue favour with a view to eliminate the Companies which have been serving the respondents for the past many years as against the new entrants who were receiving educational orders for approximately 10 to 50 Kms. By the amendment, the DOT changed the condition of Clause No. 17.3.6 of section IV of the bid document providing concession which could benefit them. As per original terms and conditions of the tender documents, certain companies with lower vendor rating gained better position by the amendment by award of higher delivery rating. By this change, the petitioner was given low delivery rating as compared to the new companies. The entire action favouring the new entrants is arbitrary and smacks of mala fides since change in the tender conditions after accepting the tender documents with a view to favour the new entrants is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Change in the original tender document favouring new entrants with no background or knowledge about the Optical Fibre cable is not in public interest hav

































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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