@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.@mdashIn this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to grant work order in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the quotation submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT), being NIT No. 01/2006-07 dated 21st August, 2006 issued by the respondents for supply of diesel pump set of 5 H.P. for the purpose of cultivation. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the subsequent NIT dated 3rd April, 2007.
2. It has been stated that the said NIT was issued for supply of diesel pump of 5 H.P. having I.S.O. and B.I.S. certification having 100 Kg. maximum weight of engine. Three tenderers were found qualified. The petitioner was found as L-l and price quoted by it was Rs. 20,501/- per engine. In spite of the same, the work order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondents have floated another tender for the same purpose and in the said tender, they have not provided any weight of engine. The petitioner has challenged the subsequent NIT also on the ground that when the process of earlier tender was completed and the petitioner was found L-l, there was no rational for inviting another tender for the same purpose. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue work order and has also prayed for quashing the subsequent tender.
3. The State respondents have contested the petitioner''s contentions and submitted that for earlier tender, a decision was taken in the meeting in which quorum was not complete. There was thus vigilance objection and was also an objection by M/s. Hind Machineries. In view of the above, the earlier tender was cancelled in terms of Clause 13 of the NIT, in which it was clearly mentioned that the tender may be cancelled at any stage without assigning any reason.
4. The decision was taken for fresh tender. In the fresh tender in view of the inherent irregularity in the earlier decision. In the fresh tender, the petitioner could have also participated, but he did not choose to do so. In response to the said NIT, several tenderers were submitted their bids and three tenderers were qualified and out of them, M/s. Hind Machineries, respondent No. 5, was found L-l. There is, thus, no illegality or irregularity in inviting the subsequent tender after cancelling the earlier tender.
5. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the earlier tender has been cancelled arbitrarily and without any cogent reason. The reason assigned by the respondents regarding vigilance objection was not communicated to the petitioner. The decision, cancelling the earlier tender, was taken behind its back. It has been submitted that (he petitioner was declared L-l and there was no valid ground for fresh tender. The subsequent tender, after almost completing the processes of the earlier tender, is arbitrary and the same is not sustainable. The respondents have acted on the objection of M/s. Hind Machineries, who did not participate in the earlier tender. The respondents by floating another tender have deprived the petitioner of right to get the work being L-1. The respondents while inviting fresh tender should have at least also considered the petitioner''s bid but the same was not considered and the decision has been taken by the respondents, accordingly, cancelling the earlier tender.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner in earlier tender had offered bid and was found L-1. The decision for inviting fresh tender was taken after the petitioner was declared L-1. However, the respondents have come with the plea that in the earlier tender, there was vigilance objection and that the pump of lesser weight was not considered, which was one of the terms in Clause 8 of the NIT. The decision of subsequent tender was, therefore, taken under the said circumstance. The petitioner should have participated in the said tender and should have made his offer afresh, but it has rushed to this Court. It has got no legal right to enforce the respondents to take decision on its application, as in Clause 13 of the NIT it was clearly mentioned that the tender can be rejected at any point of time. In support of the decision of inviting fresh tender, the respondents have, thus, come with the plea of vigilance objection.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interfering with the subsequent tender, which, according to the respondents, has now been finalised. However, the parties have submitted that the work order has not been issued in terms of the interim order of this Court.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground for quashing the subsequent tender. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to approach the Tender Committee by filing representation, requesting for consideration of its bid along with others. If such representation is filed, the Tender Committee shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
