2.M/s.Jian Irrigation systems Ltd., Jain Field, NH No.6, PB.No.72, Post Bambhori Taluk, Erondol, Jalagaon 425001.
..Respondent in WP.No.19737/2009
3.The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
4.The Director (Planning and New Services), BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
..Respondents in WP.No.19476/2009 Prayer in WP.No.19737 of 2009: Writ Petition is filed under
article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorified to call for the records of the first respondent culminating in the tender No.CGMP/CHI/DWC Tender/2009-10/1 dated 27.06.2009, and to quash the same.
Prayer in WP.Nos.19476 and 19477 of 2009: Writ Petitions are filed under
article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records of the in its tender proceedings, viz.,Tender No.CGMP/CHI/DWC Tender/2009-10/1 dated 27.06.2009 for the supply of DWC pipes andcouplers, amended by its tender notice dated 17.08.2009 and culminating with its proceedings dated 03.09.2009, and to quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to call for a fresh tender for the supply of DWC pipes and couplers.
The first respondent BSNL a public sector undertaking floated a sealed tender dated 27.06.2009 for three different procurement specifying the items namely Double Walled Corrugated (DWC) ducts and accessories 78/63mm pipe, 120/103.5mm pipe and 180/152mm pipe. The total estimate of the tender for procurement of DWC pipes was Rs.9.20 crores, and the tender for procurement of DWC pipes was open from 06.07.2009 to 27.07.2009 and the last date for submission of the sealed tender and opening of bid was fixed on 28.07.2009. In the tender notification it is specifically mentioned regarding the Technical Specifications that the product specifications are governed by GR/DWC 34/01 September 2007. So the companies who possess valid TSEC certificate as per the above Generic Requirement can alone participate in the tender.
2. While so, the writ petitioner, Dura-Line India Private Ltd., is a public sector company carrying on its business in manufacturing various types of HDPE pipes. The petitioner company down loaded the tender notice from the web site of the first respondent as the tender notice indicated that the tender document could be down loaded from their web site. But, the same was not made available. Therefore, the petitioner enquired with the first respondent in respect of the tender document for which the first respondent informed the petitioner that the same would be finalized in a couple of days and thereafter the same would be made available in their web site.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was keen on participating in the above said tender and addressed a letter dated 07.07.2009 to the first respondent to issue necessary amendments before the tender document is distributed to the bidders. The amendment sought for by the petitioner would include redefining the sizes of DWC ducts as to be in vogue, so that more bidders could participate in the bid. Though the petitioner was eagerly awaiting a response from the first respondent, no reply was given. Since the first respondent had not uploaded the tender document on the web site, the petitioner contacted the first respondent office. While replying to the petitioner, it was informed that the tender document would be available on their website as the terms were going to be finalised on 17.08.2009. The first respondent issued an amendment in the tender notice informing that the same could remain open till 07.09.2009 and it was also informed that the last date for submission of bids and opening of bids was fixed on 08.09.2009.
4. In the meanwhile the petitioner by obtaining a Demand Draft for Rs.2,080/- towards the cost of the tender curiously waiting for submission of the bid. Surprisingly, on the evening of 03.09.3009 the first respondent BSNL has issued another amendment to the same tender by amending one of the packages, by which the first respondent BSNL permitted the OD for DWC ducts as either 120mm or 125mm instead of the existing 120mm pipe. In view of the two amendments made by the first respondent restricting the eligibility criteria to participate in the tender process, the petitioners M/s.Tirupati Plastomatics Private Ltd, M/s.Dura-line India and Rex Polyextrusion had written a letters to the Assistant General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects, Chennai on 05.09.2009 by marking a copy to Chief General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects, Chennai who is the administrative head of the first respondent by pointing out the malafide intentions in the minds of the officials of the first respondent and thereby requested the first respondent for amendment of the tender and not to restrict or reduce the eligibility criteria and also not to deny to various persons the opportunity of participating in the tender. In the said letter dated 05.09.2009 the petitioner had also indicated that they would be excluded from participating in the tender process, if the amendments dated 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 are not recalled by permitting all the prospective bidders to participate with equal opportunity to compete with each others and thereby the first respondent BSNL also would not be in a position to get sufficient number of offers among various competitors.
a.The size 78mm published earlier inadvertently was corrected to 75 mm as per GR specification.
b.All the three pipes namely 75mm, 120mm and 180mm were called as individual packages with Bid Security for each packages mentioned instead of clubbing all the three pipe sizes under one package with Bid Security commonly.
6. In view of the above amendment, the NIT which was earlier published on 27.06.2009 was revised. When the last date for submission and opening of bids, namely 08.09.2009, was fast approaching just 5 days before the date of expiry, on 03.09.2009 R1 has issued an another amendment to the tender notice mentioning the existing size of 120mm DWC pipes as 120mm/125mm DWC pipes by further stating that the 125mm DWC pipes shall be evaluated as 120mm DWC under the package-2.
7. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner Dura-line Private Limited addressed a letter dated 05.09.2009 to the first respondent informing the first respondent to retain the sizes of DWC pipes as 120/103.5mm as indicated in the original tender notification and delete the size 125mm OD/DWC pipes in the tender by subsequently mentioning that the 120/103.5mm DWC Duct can accommodate four nos. of 40/33mm PLB HDPE Duct, what is the necessity of new bigger size DWC Duct namely 125mm OD which will cost more to the department. Further, it was brought to their notice that in case of amendment calling for 75mm OD DWC pipe, there will be only one bidder namely, M/s.Jain Irrigation system who has got TSEC from BSNL as on date and therefore it was informed that the first respondent could not get most competitive price from one bidder an account of this, on 13.07.2009 the petitioner Dura-line India Private Limited has requested the first respondent to amend the tender and revert to the original tender notice as it was announced in July 2009, so as to ensure equal participation of many competitors to ensure more competitive price to the respondent BSNL.
8. Again on 15.09.2009 the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent stating that the amendment issued on 03.09.2009 just 5 days before the date of opening tender by introducing new size 125mm pipe as an alternative to 120mm is highly unjustified. Since, the BSNL corporate procurement policy and guidelines No.6(iii) specifically provides that once an amendment is issued, a minimum of 7 days time is required to be given to all the bidders, but in this case, as against clause 6(iii) the respondent without extending the due date, opened the said tender on 08.09.2009 itself. The problem brought to the notice of the respondent was that in one package one cannot include two sizes namely 120mm as well as 125mm which are different and in the event of including two sizes in the same category one cannot compare the prices of two commodities correctly. Further it was also brought to the notice of the respondent that 125mm pipe is manufactured only by one bidder namely Jain Irrigation and further it was again brought to the notice of the first respondent the Assistant General Manager the sizes of the another DWC pipe from 78mm OD to 75mm OD through different tender notice. Since 75mm OD pipe is manufactured by only bidder namely Jain Irrigation whereas 78mm OD pipe is manufactured by atleast 2 bidders and on this basis the petitioner has informed the respondent to revert to the original tender as announced in July 2009, in the interest of getting competitive price to the BSNL/the respondent herein.
9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent only for the purpose of giving favour to the Jain Irrigation system the second respondent in WP.19737/2009, two amendments have been made. The first one on 17.08.2009 and the drastic amendment again was made on 03.09.2009 by completely changing even sizes of pipe by 120mm/125mm by amending just 5 days before opening the tender and bringing in 125mm pipe is a clear indication to favour Jain Irrigation system as he is the only manufacturer of both 125mm and 75mm pipe. On these basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this court to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the tender called for is neither in order nor rational and the procedure adopted by the first respondent is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Mr.I.Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for Dura-line India Private Ltd., has contended that having invited sealed tender on 06.07.2009 by fixing the last date for submission of bids on 28.07.2009, quickly bringing an amendment on 17.08.2009 by changing the size of pipe from 78mm to 75mm and again by another amendment on 03.09.2009 completely changing the size of the pipe from 120mm to 125mm the respondent has completely restricted the eligibility criteria. With the result, the above said amendments have jeopardized the opportunity of any bidder. The cumulative effect of the successive amendments made in the tender notification by clubbing 120mm pipe with 125mm pipe in the same package will not ensure equal participation of bidders and this will not encourage any fair competition among the competitors. Since, the evaluation of 2 different sizes of pipes namely 125mm and 120mm pipe by the respondent will not ensure fair evaluation of bid, the respondent BSNL should not have brought in the amendment, particularly, the amendment date 03.09.2009 by clubbing both sizes 120mm/125mm pipe only to favour the Jain Irrigation system, 2nd respondent as he was the only person having both 75mm and 120mm pipes in his stock. Further, by allowing the amendment issued on 03.09.2009 all of a sudden, that too before 5 days before opening of the bids the respondent BSNL has clearly exhibited their malafide mind to award the contract only to the Jain Irrigation system 2nd respondent because as on 03.09.2009, except Jain Irrigation system no one was having both 75mm pipe and 120mm pipe.
11. Therefore, in the name of holding public auction the respondents have completely restricted the eligibility criteria by bringing in two successive amendments on 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009. Though, the respondent being a public sector undertaking, instead of ensuring equal participation among the bidders for the purpose of getting competitive price for executing the work, has unlawfully brought in two successive amendments dated 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 in the middle of the tender process and attempted to favour the second respondent. Further the 03.09.2009 amendment has brought in only to exclude all other petitioners from participating in the tender, such arbitrary action adopted by the respondents would not only amount to unfair practice, these are per se illegal, illogical, unreasonable and violation of
Article 14 Constitution of India. On that basis the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing the amendment dated 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 passed by the first respondent.
12. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in W.P.19477 and 19737 of 2009 adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.I.Subramanian, senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner in WP.No.19476 of 2009.
13. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent Jain Irrigation system would submit that the second respondent in WP.19737 of 2009 is one of the largest manufacturer of all types of ducts for telecom application and had got valid approval from the quality assurance wing of BSNL, the first respondent herein and as per various (GR) Generic Requirements of Telecom Engineering Center, the second respondent was approved for production of various ducting and accessories for telecom goods.
14. Whileso, Mr.P.S.Raman, has further submitted that the petitioners challenging the amendment has no locus standi to file the writ petition for the reason that though they were eligible bidder for some packages specified in the tender document, but deliberately chose not to participate in the tender, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Secondly, it was contended, as per the terms and conditions in the tender notification, the writ petitioners have got a valid TSEC for package-2 (120mm) and package-3 (180mm) DWC ducts and having possessed valid TSEC certificate for package 2 and 3, the petitioners could have fairly participated in the tender for these two items which constitute major portion of the tender. But, unfortunately instead of participating in the tender, the petitioners chose not to participate. On the other hand directed the first respondent to make change in the sizes of DWC ducts to ensure that non standard sizes are put in the tender document which would not only prevent genuine participants to participate in the tender but also keep the price high.
15. It was further urged that in the second amendment dated 03.09.2009 the size of 125mm DWC pipe was included stating that the 125mm DWC pipes would be evaluated as 120mm DWC pipes under the same package and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that the second amendment dated 03.09.2009 has restricted the basic eligibility criteria of any of the bidders and has in no way jeopardized the opportunity of any bidders including the bidders who have valid TSEC approval for both 120mm and 180mm for which the tender was called for. In his further reply, learned senior counsel for the R2 has stated that the decision of the first respondent to include 125mm size pipes does not in any manner restrict the petitioner from participating in the tender. But the petitioner did not submit their quotation, which confirms that they could not with-stand the fair competition and therefore did not participate in the tender, which would disqualify the prayer in the writ petition to agitate further in this matter.
16. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel for the second respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (1) SCC 679 (Association of Registration plates v. Union of India and others) to fortify his arguments that the selection of one manufacturer through process of open competition is not a creation of any monopoly and the same cannot be construed as violation of
Article 19(1)(g) r/w
Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that notice inviting tender for supply of high security vehicle registration plates are open to response by all even if one single manufacturer is ultimately chosen for the region or state, it cannot be said that the state has created monopoly of business in favour of a private party. On that basis, the justification for selection of single manufacturer was found legally sustainable on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. In the above said judgment awarding of contract by the respondent to the second respondent who is a manufacturer of 75mm as well as 120mm pipe cannot be complained of any arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
17. The learned counsel appearing for BSNL/the first respondent herein would submit that the amendment brought in by the BSNL on 17.08.2009 is not an amendment, but it is only a revised NIT (Notice Inviting Tender). On 27.06.2009 only NIT was up loaded and document was not uploaded. In the revised NIT all the three pipes viz., 75mm, 120mm and 180mm were called as individual packages alongwith respective couplers and bid security for each package was also requested for submission separately. Therefore, it was argued that the NIT is termed as Revised NIT and not declared as amendment to the earlier NIT as mentioned by the petitioner Rex Polyextrusion. Only in the revised NIT the sizes of each pipe are mentioned as 75mm, 120mm and 180mm as per Generic Requirements Specification.
18. In the earlier tender notice the size of 77mm pipe was not as per TSEC GR specification and as it was inadvertently mentioned, the same was not considered for the tender. Therefore, the size 75mm was executed and by amendment 75mm as per TSEC GR specification was considered. Since the tender was called for 75mm size as per the requirement for STP BSNL, the allegations of the petitioners that 75mm pipe is unworthy for use is baseless and without any valid reason.
19. Heard the counsels on both sides.
20. The first respondents has invited sealed tender for procurement of DWC pipes from registered Indian companies manufacturing DWC HTPE ducts pipe for the supply of DWC pipes and couplers by tender notice dated 06.07.2009 as follows:
Quantity Tendered Sl.No.
Item Quantity Bid Security Rs.
Full pipe in kms 1 78/63mmpipe 300 2 120/193.5mm pipe 240 3 180/152mm pipe 50 Couplers in Numbers 4 78/63mm 25000 5 120/103.5mm 20000 6 180/152mm 4167 Split pipes in kms 7 120/103.5mm pipe 300 Rs.18,43,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Three Thousands only
21. The first respondent brought an amendment to the tender notice on 17.08.2009 as follows :
Quantity Tendered Sl.No.
Item Size Outer Dia Nominal-in mm Quantity Bid Security Rs.
Package-1 DWC HDPE Full Ducts-in km Couplers-in Nos 75mm 300 25000 5,64,000 Package-2 DWC HDPE Full Ducts-in km Couplers-in Nos 120mm 390 20000 10,40,000 Package-3 DWC HDPE Full Ducts-in km Couplers-in Nos 180mm 50 4167 2,39,000 By way of first amendment, the 78/63mm pipe was changed to 75mm pipe. Once again just five days before the opening of the bid, the Respondents BSNL has brought in another amendments as follows :
No:CGMP/CHI/DWC Tender/2009-10/8 Dt @ Chennai 28 the 03rd Sep-2009 Sub : Amendment to tender-reg.
Ref : CGMP/CHI/DWC Tender/2009-10/1 Dated 27.06.2009 The following amendment is issued for the tender cited above.
S.No Item EXISTING Size outer Dia Nominal-in mm AMENDED AS Size outer Dia Nominal-in mm Package-2 DWC HDPE Full Ducts-in km Couplers-in Nos.
120mm 120mm or 125mm
While bringing the second amendment dated 03.09.2009 the first respondent has violated clause 6(iii) which states that in order to afford prospective bidders a reasonable time to take the amendment into account in preparing their bids, the purchaser may, at his discretion extend the deadline suitably for the submission of bids.
22. As per clause 6(iii) of instruction to bidders, the reasonable time to take amendment into account should be given by extending the last date for the submission of bids, but in this case by issuing amendment dated 03.09.3009 the respondent has violated the above said clause 6(iii) of the instructions to bidders. Further by bringing the first amendment, the first respondent has modified the requirement of full pipes from 78/63mm pipe to 75mm pipe. By bringing the first amendment as contended by the petitioners the respondents have restricted the eligibility criteria of the petitioners. Since the petitioners were not manufacturing the 75mm pipes all the three petitioners Dura-line, Rex and Tirupathy Plastomatic have been completely excluded from participating in the tender process. This could be seen from the following table :
Company Name TSEC approval available for pipe sizes Duraline 90m, 120mm, 180mm Rex 77mm, 120mm, 125mm, 185mm Tirupathy Plastomatic 77mm, 120mm, 180mm Zenlas pipes 120mm Jain Irrigation 75mm, 125mm
23. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for petitioners that the amendments have restricted the eligibility criteria of the petitioners and also jeopardized the opportunity of the bidders in taking part in the tender process and thereby the equal chance for participation of bidder in the above said tender has caused grave injustice are required to be tested on the scope of judicial review.
24. Scope of judicial review of award of contracts I may refer to some of decisions of the Apex Court dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts.
In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M&N Publications Ltd the Apex Court observed (SCC p.458, para 18).
"18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the 'decision-making process'. ...the courts can certainly examine whether 'decision-making process' was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution."
In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd the Apex Court summarised the scope of interference as enunciated in several earlier decisions thus : (SCC pp.623-24, para 7) "The state, its corporations instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under
Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene"
In Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India the Apex Court held : (SCC p.700, para43) "43. ...
Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the Government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public interest."
25. In the light of above ratio, the judgment cited by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in WP.No.19737 of 2009, may not be relevant to the present case in as much as in the above said judgment, the question of amendment was not in issue. The respondents/BSNL after issuing tender notice by fixing the last date for opening the tender before the opening date of tender, have brought in two successive amendments arbitrarily by excluding the prospective bidders from taking part in the auction. But the ratio relied on by the learned senior counsel in the above said judgment is that selecting one manufacturer through a process of open competition is not creation of any monopoly in violation of
Article 19(i)(g) r/w Art 19(6), but in the present case, the question is whether the successive amendments made by the BSNL/respondent herein are arbitrary and irrational and further calculated to favour R2 or not? Therefore, the above said judgment has no relevance to the issue raised herein.
26. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in WP.No.19737 of 2009 has further urged to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have not participated in the tender proceedings. Therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the tender proceedings, such contention cannot be fortified since the respondents has introduced the first amendment by tender notification on 17.08.2009 by cancelling 78mm pipe to bring 75mm pipe, immediately objecting not to carry out any change in the tender notice have also filed representation as well as appeals before the first respondent setting out their grievances. But the respondents without even considering the appeal which are even now pending, again brought in second amendment dated 03.09.2009 which is 5 days ahead of the date of opening of the tender. As the BSNL/the respondent have not disposed of even representation and appeals the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petition. Further as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender notification, if they participated in the tender proceedings they are disqualified to challenge the same in the court of law. So in view of it the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent cannot be accepted.
27. The complaints of the petitioners are that after floating tender notification by fixing last date for opening tender, the Respondent-BSNL by way of two successive amendments dated 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 have changed the sizes of two items of pipes (78mm to 75mm and 120mm to 125mm pipe) without even extending the dates only to favour the second respondent in WP.No.19737/2009. When the first respondent BSNL issued tender notice on 27.06.2009 inviting sealed tender from registered Indian Companies manufacturing DWC pipes for the supply of DWC pipes and couples, three different size of pipes viz; 78/63mm pipe, 120/103.5mm pipe and 180/152mm pipe were notified for their requirement. Admittedly, the second respondent/Jain Irrigation in WP.No.19737/2009 was not in possession of any of the above said sizes of pipes. Whileso, the Respondents/BSNL by bringing the first amendment on 17.08.2009 has replaced the 78mm pipe into 75mm pipe, thereby the second respondent who was not qualified as per the original tender notice dated 27.06.2009 gets qualified partly in respect of one item viz., 75mm pipe. This was objected by the petitioners by asking the first respondent to rectify the same. But the same was not considered. Again the first respondent introduced another amendment on 03.09.2009 by bringing 125mm pipe stating that the 125mm pipes will be evaluated as 120mm pipe under the package-2 and thereby the first respondent on yet another occasion has favoured the second respondent. The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent would content that the first respondent in order to facilitate cable wires inside the pipes has chosen larger size of 125mm pipe instead of 120mm pipe and 125mm pipe is always convenient and more useful to pass through any cable wires and such specification demanded by R1 cannot be objected to. If this is the logic to bring an amendment dated 03.09.209 to justify the larger size of the 125mm pipe, the first respondent should have retained 78mm pipe but the first respondent had replaced 78mm pipe by bringing smaller size of 75mm pipe. As the pipe size of 120mm/103.5mm can accommodate four numbers of 40/33mm Duct, there is no necessity for introducing a new and bigger size of 125mm. Even if this logic is accepted the same logic should have been applied for retaining 78mm pipe but the size of 78mm pipe has been replaced by bringing in 75mm pipe. The reason given for changing 78mm to 75mm pipe by the first respondent was that the size of 78mm published inadvertently earlier, was corrected to 75mm as per GR specification. The reasons given by both the respondents to carry out two amendments dated 17.08.2009 and 03.09.2009 do not stand to reason. Indisputably the second respondent has become qualified only by way of two amendments. Without the amendments, the second respondent would not have been qualified for the tender. Admittedly, when the sealed tender was floated by the BSNL/respondents, Jain Irrigation the second respondent in WP.No.19737/2009 was not qualified and they did not possess either 75mm pipes or 125mm pipes. Further both the amendments have been made by the first respondent in violation of clause 6(iii) of tender instructions. As per clause 6(iii) the first respondent is bound to extend the deadline suitably for submission of bids while making amendment.
28. In the present case, though the second amendment was made on 03.09.2009, just 5 days before the opening date of tender by introducing a new size of 125mm pipe, since the first respondent has not extended the deadline suitably for the submission of bids, the amendment introduced on 03.09.2009 is a clear violation of clause 6(iii) of the tender instructions. These two amendments brought in by the BSNL/respondents clearly indicate that they are made to favour R2 in WP.No.19737of2009 and the said amendments are not only being arbitrary and unreasonable but in violation of clause 6(iii) of the NIT and therefore this court is constrained to set aside tender notification as arbitrary unreasonable and violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further the first respondent being a public authority should adopt reasonable, fair and transparent procedure in holding tender by enabling all prospective bidders to participate in the tender process. Hence this court directs that afresh tender to be floated. The consideration of the tender received and the procedure to be followed in the matter of acceptance of tender should be transparent, fair and open. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent deserves to be set aside, accordingly the same are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.
tsh Copy to
1.M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager (MM) O/o.Chief General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects, 25, Greenways Lane, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
3.The Director (Planning and New Services), BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001