M/S Dhiraj Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors

S.No.,Category of Cranes,Total Nos.,"Minimum No. To

be quoted for

(30%)

1.,Hydraulic Cranes,75 Nos.,"22.5 rounded off

as 23

2.,Small Cranes,40 Nos.,12

b. A customer/Buyer can only claim to have purchased the vehicle from TAT Motors Sales & Service only if a valid GST Invoice copy with duly,,,

filled details at the vehicle model payment of the purchase, is produced/submitted by the buyer. (A blank copy of the same is attached for kind",,,

reference,,,

Lastly, for any further queries on the above subject, kindly feel free to connect with the undersigned.",,,

Thanking you,",,,

Yours Faithfully,",,,

For TATA MOTORS LTD.â€​,,,

Mr.O.P.Saxena, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be faulted if the vendor did not encash the cheque. As far as it was",,,

concerned, the order was final and it was committed to purchase 25 cranes. It was urged besides that the tender conditions have been tailor made to",,,

suit a third party who has retained monopoly in the trade so far. Learned counsel further submitted that the question of presenting the vehicles arises,,,

much later and relied upon clause 1.29 in this regard.,,,

It is evident from the above discussion that the petitioner was not primarily aggrieved by the tender condition, rather participated in the process and",,,

asserted that he possessed the technical expertise as well as vehicles stipulated in clause 1.6.1. The respondent as part of their evaluation process,",,,

routinely checked with the vendor (on whom the petitioner claimed, it had placed the purchase order for 25 vehicles). The reply of M/s Tata Motors",,,

was infact that there was no commitment. It further explained the sale procedure which it normally follows.,,,

The petitioner had during the course of these proceedings also filed an additional affidavit. The additional affidavit enclosed copies of the purchase,,,

order which were originally not on record. The copy of the purchase order supplied to the government clearly shows that it was not an unconditional,,,

offer made to the vendor (M/s Tata Motors) but rather with a condition. The purchase orders were premised upon the following conditions:,,,

“Note: Subject to issue of Letter of Award from Delhi Police for Crane.â€​,,,

The petitioner has not placed on record copy of its bank statement or any other credible evidence to indicate that it possessed the amounts for,,,

which the cheque was issued or that the amounts had been debited from such account.,,,

Given all these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the decision of the respondent to not to process petitioner’s tender and reject it",,,

cannot be characterized as arbitrary. In this regard, the petitioner’s reliance on Clause 1.29 is of little consequence. If the authorities could",,,

determine â€" as they did â€" on a reasonable assessment of the bid, based upon an enquiry that the petitioner had not unconditionally committed to",,,

purchase the requisite member of vehicles, their decision to reject the offer does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.",,,

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.,,,