The writ petition is to declare the tender floated by the respondent in Tender No.BPCL/LPG/PKD/Sr/2009/03/Coimbatore for transportation of packed LPG Ex-LPG Bottling Plant Coimbatore and Staging Depot in Palghat District as null and void and to conduct fresh tender.
2.1. The respondent, by way of advertisement, has called for tenders for transportation of packed LPG Ex-LPG Bottling Plant Coimbatore and Staging Depot in Palghat District and it is stated that the petitioner, in response to the said advertisement, has obtained tender book on 26.8.2009 and submitted the same in a sealed cover containing credential bid and price bid along with a demand draft for Rs.1 Lakh on 1.9.2009 at 2 p.m. It is stated that the credential bid was opened on 1.9.2009 at 3 p.m. in her presence at Chennai.
2.2. As per the tender condition, after opening the credential bid, the eligible tenderers will be notified regarding the date, time and venue for opening of the price bid and before opening the price bid there would be verification of trucks by the respondent and according to the petitioner, the place of verification will have to be intimated by the Corporation and the petitioner has not received any such intimation for production of trucks for verification.
2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 25.9.2009 when she enquired the respondent, she was informed that the price bid was to be opened on 25.9.2009 at 11 a.m. The petitioner was not called for physical verification of trucks and was directed to get back her E.M.D., since she has not produced trucks for physical verification by the respondent and according to the petitioner, the respondent has violated the conditions of the tender by not informing her about the verification of the trucks.
3.1. In the counter affidavit, while it is admitted that the petitioner was one of the participants, it is stated that at the time when credential bids were opened on 1.9.2009 at 3 p.m., the representative of the petitioner one Balasubramaniam was present and after scrutiny of the credential bids, the eligible tenderers were informed by the officials of the respondent that they should produce the trucks owned by them as quoted in the tenders to the respondent/Corporation on or before 12.9.2009 and a letter dated 1.9.2009 has been given to all the participating tenderers, including the petitioner's representative, and the petitioner's representative has confirmed his presence at the time of credential bid opening. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent that, even on 1.9.2009, intimation was given to all participating tenderers about the physical verification of the trucks to be done on or before 12.9.2009.
3.2. It is stated that based on the said letter dated 1.9.2009, majority of the participating tenderers have produced trucks and the petitioner has failed to produce trucks for physical verification. It is stated that three tenderers have not produced trucks for physical verification, including the petitioner. It is also stated that, in fact, one of the tenderers KRN Roadways, who offered ten trucks, was able to produce only four trucks for physical verification and sought permission by letter dated 14.9.2009 to produce other vehicles for verification before letter of intent is issued and in spite of it his name was not considered, since the same was against the tender conditions. It is further stated that the present transport contract comes to an end by 30.11.2009 and the letter of intent has to be given to the successful tenderer.
4. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has stated that she was present on the date of opening of the credential bids, viz., on 1.9.2009, while the records of the respondent in respect of the entry pass dated 1.9.2009 shows that on behalf of the petitioner one Mr.Balasubramaniam has participated and he has also signed, having participated. It is seen that on the date of opening of the credential bids 27 tenderers have participated, having put their signatures in the records as produced by the respondent, including the representative of the petitioner.
5. It is the specific case of the respondent that its officials on 1.9.2009 have informed all the participating tenderers that the verification of trucks must be effected on or before 12.9.2009. The letter stated to have been given to the participating tenderers on 1.9.2009 shows as follows:
"Sub: Physical verification of Trucks offered reg.
This has reference to the vehicles offered by you against Tender No.BPCL.LPG.PKD.SR.2009/ 03/CBE.
Kindly carryout the physical verification of the vehicles offered against the above tender on or before 12/09/2009 as per the tender conditions at our Coimbatore/Tuticorin Chennai & Tanjore LPG bottling plants.
Please note that if the trucks are not physically verified on or before 12.09.2009, your offer will not be processed further and no correspondence in this regard will be entertained."
thereby directing the participating tenderers to produce trucks for physical verification on or before 12.9.2009.
6. It is the case of the respondent that all the participating tenderers except three, including the petitioner, have produced the trucks for physical verification based on the said information. The record shows that one of the participants, KRN Roadways in their letter dated 14.9.2009 has informed the respondent that he was unable to produce ten trucks and he was producing only four trucks, undertaking to produce the remaining vehicles before the letter of intent is given. In the said letter, the said party has specifically stated that the respondent has instructed the tenderers to bring the trucks for physical verification on or before 12.9.2009. The operative portion of the said letter of KRN Roadways is as follows:
"I kindly inform you Sir, that the above subject matter, I have placed my Tender form for Packed LPG Transportation at Coimbatore Plant. You have instructed the Tender mentioned vehicles are under gone the Physical Verification before 12th September 2009. As per your instruction I have produced my four vehicles viz. 1. KA 01 AC 9799, 2. KA 01 AC 9979 3. KA 01 B 2919 4. TN 52 4496 for physical verification at Coimbatore Plant."
7. The entire records filed in the typeset of papers show that the various tenderers, who have participated, have produced the vehicles while the petitioner has not done so. In such circumstances, the stand of the petitioner that she was not informed about the date, time and venue for physical verification of the vehicles cannot be accepted.
8. Condition No.11 of the tender notification, which is as follows:
"11. After scrutiny of the Credential Bids, the eligible tenderers will be notified regarding date, time and venue for opening of the Price Bids."
only enables the respondent to notify the date and not by private intimation and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, as stated above, in the presence of the tenderers, notification has been made and individual notices have been given, based on which the tenderers have produced the vehicles for physical verification and therefore, it is not correct to state that the respondent should have communicated to the individual tenderers by post or otherwise.
9. Clause 34 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the tender, which is as follows:
"34. Opening of tenders Credential Bid will be opened on 01.09.2009 at 15.00 hrs, at the above address, in the presence of participating tenderers.
After scrutiny of the Credential Bids, the eligible tenderers will be notified regarding date, time and venue for opening of the Price Bids."
only enables the respondent to notify regarding the time, date and venue of opening of price bid. In such circumstances, the petitioner having participated in the tender process cannot turn around to say that the tender is null and void. Merely because negotiation is on among the tenderers who have participated in the price bid, the petitioner having participated in the credential bid cannot be expected to be given any opportunity.
For the reasons aforesaid, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the tender process. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
sasi