AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against the order dated July 4, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 14746 of 2025.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, although, the appellant by itself, does not participate in a tender process but, since, the appellant is a world renowned manufacturer of airconditioning system using mono-screw technology, the appellant is prejudiced by the action taken by the respondent authorities.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, Metro Railways floated tender for Upgradation of Tunnel Ventilation System and Environment Control System in Metro Railway at 15 stations which included supply of chillers and compressors. He submits that, initially, Metro Railway Authorities included both twin screw rotor as well as mono-screw chillers and compressors in the tender documents. He submits that, appellant as well as various other persons participated in the pre bid conference as scheduled by the Metro Railway Authorities. Subsequently, Metro Railway Authorities issued one corrigendum, by which, Metro Railway Authorities proceeded to delete mono-screw chillers and compressors from the tender process. He refers to the correspondence exchanged between the parties. He submits that, subsequently, Metro Railway Authorities changed the specification of the chillers and compressors to only twin rotor screw chillers and compressors. He submits that, by reason of such change, suppliers of mono-screw chillers and compressors stood ousted from the tender process.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon AIR 1966 SC 828 (Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) as also a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported at 82 LW 307 (R. Lakshminarayanan vs. V. A. Maruthappa Nainar & Ors.) in support of the proposition that, the writ petition is maintainable at the behest of the appellant.
Metro Railway Authorities are represented.
We find from the records that, the Metro Railway Authorities floated a tender for Upgradation of Tunnel Ventilation System and Environment Control System in Metro Railway at 15 stations in the city of Kolkata. One of the components of the upgradation was the chillers and compressors. Apparently they comprise less than 10% of the tender. Initially, Metro Railway Authorities prescribed mono-screw/twin screw rotor for the chillers and the compressors. Subsequently, Metro Railway Authorities decided to go for twin screw chillers and compressors only.
This decision of Metro Railway Authorities is assailed in the writ petition at the behest of the appellant. Appellant, however, participated in the pre bid conference meeting as convened by Metro Railway, although, the appellant claims that it would not participate in the tender by itself but through suppliers.
Issue of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge did not proceed on the basis of the writ petition being not maintainable.
In such circumstances, we are not inclined to decide on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition in the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
We notice that, the appellant before us participated in the pre bid conference in the tender process.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not in a position to arrive at a finding that, the rules of the games were changed or the goal post was changed subsequent to the commencement of the tender. The subject tender was floated prescribing both mono-screw and twin screw rotor for the chillers and compressors. However, prior to the tender being considered finally, at the pre bid stage, the authorities decided to opt for one of the two qualities of chillers and compressors specified in the initial tender document. In the initial tender document mono-screw and twin screw chillers and compressors were specified. Subsequently, Metro Railway Authorities proceeded to opt for twin screw chillers and compressors only.
Learned Single Judge in the impugned order records that, Metro Railway Authorities relied upon expert opinion of authorities namely, National Disasters Management Authority, IIT Kharagpur and others to justify its action.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, these opinions of experts were never discussed in the pre bid conference meeting.
Be that as it may, Metro Railway Authorities decided to stick to one of the two specified qualities of the chillers and compressors. The decision to opt for one of the two specified qualities of chillers and compressors was taken prior to opening of the technical bid and final bid. Such decision was well published. Therefore, none of the intending participants in the tender process can be said to be prejudiced by such decision being taken. It is open to a tenderer to decide on the terms of the tender process. The decision of Metro Railway is not established to be taken on extraneous consideration, arbitrary or in colourable exercise of power.
In response to a query of the Court as to whether, there are other competitors in the field of mono-screw chillers and compressors, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant on instruction submits that, there are none.
Apparently, there are various manufacturers and supplies of the twin screw chillers and compressors. Therefore, on such ground also, we are not in a position to arrive at a finding that, decision taken by Metro Railway Authorities in opting for twin screw chillers and compressors is vitiated by colourable exercise of power or is arbitrary.
Learned Single Judge noted that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We do not find any perversity in such decision of the learned Single Judge.
We find no ground in the present appeal.
M.A.T. 1008 of 2025 alongwith connected application are dismissed without any order as to costs.
I agree