AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved of e-NIT 03 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018, whereby bids were invited inter alia for supply of Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A
& B for Jammu Division. A similar advertisement eNIT 04 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018 was issued for supply of Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A & B
for Kashmir Division.Â
The case of the petitioner is that the Soya Refined Oil sought to be supplied pursuant to the said tender notices does not contain vitamin A & B. It is
stated that realizing this mistake the official respondents while issuing retender dated 02.08.2018 in regard to Kashmir Division have rectified the
mistake and this time invited bids for supply of Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A & D but the same was not, however, done with regard to Jammu
Division where they proceeded to finalise the tenders.Â
It is stated that even when the eNIT 03 of 2018 required bidders to supply the Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A & B, all the bidders have submitted
their bids for supply of Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A & D. This fact is not denied by the respondents including one of the bidders who has been
declared as L-1 and is being represented by Mr. Rahul Bharti, leanred counsel.Â
Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 submits that even when the respondents committed a mistake in reflecting the
Soya Refined Oil ingredients as vitamins A & B, yet the bidders understood very well that the Soya Refined Oil is to be supplied with vitamins A & D.
It was urged that the petitioner was silent in the petition as regards the satisfaction of the requirement of technical bids as contained in condition 11 of
the eNIT.Â
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The requirement of eNIT 03 of 2018 is Soya Refined Oil with vitamin A & B. Admittedly, the bids submitted by the tenderers including the respondent
No. 5, who has been declared L-1 and represented by Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel has submitted his bids in regard to the Soya Refined Oil are
with vitamin A &D.The bids, therefore, submitted are in regard to a product which was not at all one for which the products were invited. At this
stage it may not be open to the Court to decide as to whether the Soya Refined Oil actually contains vitamins A & D or A & B. However, it appears
that the bids received by the respondents are in regard to a product different from the one for which the bids have been invited.Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner may be justified in claiming that the official respondents infact committed an error in inviting bids in regard to Soya
Refined Oil with vitamin A & B and the error should have been rectified as so was done in the Kashmir Division. The official respondents, therefore,
in principle could not have been asked for bids in regard for one product and finalised the tenders in regard to a different product.
Prima facie the case is made out for interim relief.
Notice.
Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned GA waives notice on behalf of the official respondents. Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of
respondent No. 5.Â
List again on 21.09.2018.
Meanwhile, subject to objections and till next date before the Bench, no contract shall be allotted to the successful tenderer, however, the official
respondents would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision including the one to order re-tendering of the entire process in tune with the e-tender
08 dated 02.08.2018 with regard to the Soya Refined Oil. The State Mission Director, ICDS Jammu and Kashmir-respondent No. 2 shall take an
appropriate decision by or before the next date of hearing. Â