JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

CM APPL. 33783/2024(for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8220/2024 & CM APPL. 33782/2024

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Cancellation of the Award of Tender No. PLCC/MPPL P-25/IT/23006 (‘subject tender’) awarded by Respondent No.1 i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited (‘IOCL’) to Respondent No.2 i.e., Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) Direction to the Respondent No.1 to take action against Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 i.e., Tejas Network Limited for violation of Clause 5.1.6 of the subject Tender.

(iii) Direction to Respondent No.1 to adhere strictly to the prescribed procedures for bidding and awarding contracts as delineated in the terms of the subject Tender.

(iv) Direction to the Respondent No.1 to decide the complaint filed by the Petitioner on 23rd October, 2023, in a time bound manner. In addition, the Petitioner seeks stay of the operation of the award of the subject Tender in favour of Respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner is a registered company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of telecommunication and networking equipment. Petitioner is stated to be one of the only two Indian Original Equipment Manufacturers (‘OEM’) of SDH1 equipment.

2.1 It is stated that Respondent No.1 issued the subject Tender on 16th February, 2023 for the development of an oil pipeline project in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana.

2.2 It is stated that Respondent No.4 i.e., Honeywell Automation India Ltd approached the Petitioner herein requesting for a quotation for the equipment to be supplied by the Petitioner. It is stated that Petitioner vide e- mail dated 21st April, 2023 submitted its quotation to Respondent No. 4 along with requisite documents as required for the submission of the bid. It is stated that on the basis of the said quotation, Respondent No. 4 indeed submitted its bid on 05th May, 2023.

2.3 It is stated that during the evaluation of the technical bid, Respondent No. 4 had requested the Petitioner to issue a Commitment Certificate for onward submission to Respondent No. 1. It is stated that this Commitment Certificate was as per the format of the Annexure P-VIII of the subject Tender.

2.4 It is stated that while Respondent No.4 qualified in the technical bid, but was rejected in the financial bid and the subject Tender was awarded to Respondent No.2 on 13th September, 2023

2.5 It is stated that the aforesaid facts evidence that the Petitioner was involved in the subject Tender and if Respondent No. 4 would have been successful, the Petitioner as well would have been the direct beneficiary of the award of the subject Tender.

2.6 It is stated that upon review of the Tender Summary Report, the Petitioner learnt that the technical bids of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had qualified. It is stated that however, Respondent No. 2 is the distributor of Respondent No. 3 and has a direct relationship with each other. It is stated

1 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy.

that both Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not have simultaneously submitted separate bids for the subject Tender as it negates Clause 5.1.6 of the subject Tender. It is stated that Clause 5.1.6 stipulates that if two bidders have a conflict of interest, which substantially affects the fair competition, said bidder shall not be eligible to bid for the subject Tender.

2.7 It is stated that the Petitioner made representation to Respondent No.1 on 23rd October, 2023, calling upon Respondent No.1 to take action against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further cancel the tender awarded to Respondent No.2.

2.8 It is stated that thereafter, the vigilance department of Respondent No.1 sought details with respect to alleged contravention done by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is stated that since various correspondences between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, were taking place, but nothing concrete was be