$~31 & 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 23rd May, 2019 + W.P.(C) 5020/2019, C.M.24197/2019 DIN BANDHU DASS ..... Petitioner versus DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 3110/2019, C.M.Nos.14274/2019 & 20002/2019 MESSRS. RASOI CANTEEN & CATERERS ..... Petitioner versus DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. .... Respondents Present: Mr.A.K.Mata, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sudharshan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in item no.31.

Mr.Raman Kapoor, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Joydeep Sarma, Advocate for the petitioner in item no.32.

Mr.M.M.Singh and Mr.S.K.Pal, Advocates for the applicant/intervenor in item no.31.

Mr.Aldanish Rein, Advocate for Delhi Technological University in both the matters.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 5020/2019, C.M.24197/2019 (u/O 1 R 10 CPC)

W.P.(C) 3110/2019, C.M.Nos.14274/2019 (stay) & 20002/2019 (stay)

1. With the consent of the parties, we set out the writ petition for final hearing and disposal.

2. Some of the facts pertaining to both the writ petitions are common. On

18.11.2018, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued for operation of mess services to the hostels of the respondent. In terms of the NIT and subsequent corrigendum issued by the respondent, the bid-submission date was fixed for 21.12.2018 upto 2:00 p.m. Both the petitioners participated in the tender by submitting their bids. The process of bidding was through e-tendering. The petitioners had submitted their bids through e-portal and hard copies of the documents were also submitted in a sealed envelope.

3. It is the case of both the petitioners that after submitting their bids, they waited for evaluation of their bids. However, the bids were not opened by the Respondent. The petitioners made enquiries and were made to understand that the process was going on and it would conclude soon.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 5020/2019, on 01.05.2019, received a letter dated 27/28.04.2019 informing the petitioner as under:

“It is seen that on the basis of online Technical Bids received, only 2 vendors have technically qualified and out of which only 1 vendor has bided for all groups. Since as per GFR, Number of Qualified Bidders are less than 3, therefore a Competent Authority has decided that the present tender stands cancelled/foreclosed. Fresh Tender for Mess services in DTU will be invited soon in due course.”

5. Having received the said letter, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the communication dated 27/28.04.2019 as well as a direction to Respondent No. 1 to complete the tender process.

6. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 3110/2019 received a letter dated 18.02.2019 issued by Respondent No. 1 seeking certain clarification/documents from the petitioner. The petitioner duly responded to the said letter vide its reply dated 07.03.2019. It is averred that while submitting the reply on 07.03.2019, the petitioner noticed that some of the participants in the NIT had submitted fresh documents in respect of their technical bid which is not permissible. The petitioner further avers that he thereafter learnt that the technical bids had been evaluated by the committee and three participants had been shortlisted as being successful in the technical bid. The petitioner also learnt that Respondent No. 2 who was the existing contractor and whom Respondent No. 1 was wanting to favour was not amongst the shortlisted tenderers and thus, Respondent No. 1 was intending to cancel the tender process. The petitioner then again submitted a representation to Respondent No. 1 but getting no response, he filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to complete the tender process.

7. Mr.A.K.Mata, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

5020/2019, submits that reading of the aforesaid communication would show that although the petitioner and other participants were found to be qualified, but the tendering