AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1 Petitioners have approached this Court inter alia for quashing order dated 15.05.2016, Annexure P/10, passed by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (for short ‘PSPCL’), whereby, their tender bid has been rejected. Petitioners have also sought quashing the award of the tender in favour of respondent No.3.
Ms. Nagpal, counsel for petitioners has inter alia contended that a tender was issued for “Supply and Delivery Lineman/Alm Tool Kits (Hand Tool & Safety Tool Kit) and Testing Equipments as per applicable standards” against tender Enquiry No.QQ-1348/PO/C&S. Counsel submits that petitioners participated in the tender process and as required by the tender documents, submitted the samples of the products to be supplied. By making a reference to the impugned orders, she submits that the samples were visually inspected and were rejected by observing that they are either visually of poor quality or the material appears to be brittle and prone to breakage. She has made a reference to Clause 7.1 of NIT which specifies that material has to be got tested from an independent Government/Government approved or recognized NABL test house etc.. She submits that along with the material, petitioners had duly supplied the requisite certificates which have not been considered by the respondents.
Mr. Sharma, Senior Counsel for PSPCL, submits that the samples supplied by petitioners were apparently of a very poor quality. He submits that on verbal orders passed by the Court, the samples were produced and were examined by the Court. In particular, reference has been made to the stand taken by PSPCL in response to para 11 of the written statement which is reproduced below:-
“It is further specifically submitted that the samples of both the Petitioner (NVR Forgings) and Respondent No.3 (Desolpower and Safety Private Limited) were produced before this Hon’ble Court and were inspected by the Hon’ble Bench on 27.05.2026. The Hon’ble Court had an opportunity to physically compare the samples of both parties. The very inspection of samples by the Hon’ble Court is a testament to the fact that evaluation of such products necessarily requires physical examination, and that the approach of PSPCL’s Technical Evaluation Committee in conducting a physical sample evaluation was not only lawful but was in fact the appropriate methodology. The comparative quality between the samples of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 would itself be apparent from such inspection.”
This stand has not been refuted by petitioners in the rejoinder, although, it has been asserted that the Court did not make any observation on the quality of the material produced.
Counsel for petitioners states that the evaluation of the material does not necessarily require physical examination and the approach of the Technical Evaluation Committee in conducting the physical sample is lawful. She has asserted that the material supplied was ISI certified.
Be that as it may, it appears that after examining the material supplied by petitioners, this Court, issued notice of motion to the respondents and observed that the allotment of tender in question shall abide by the further orders to be passed in the petition. The Court did not stay the award of the tender in favour of respondent No.3.
There has been a subsequent development during the pendency of the writ petition. The entire material has been duly supplied by respondent No.3, who was awarded the contract. A categoric statement to this effect has been made by counsel for PSPCL, on the basis of instructions received from Mr. Sachin Verma, Senior XEN, PSPCL. Reference has also been made by Mr. Sharma to judicial precedents to support the arguments that at this stage, no relief can be granted to petitioners.
In Omega Elevators Vs. State of M.P. and another Law Finder Doc ID # 2800227 , Apex Court has held that as the installation work has been completed and no interim order was passed by the Court, and as work stands completed, no effective relief can be granted. Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in K.N. Guruswamy Vs. State of Mysore AIR 1954 SC 592 as the contract period was about to end when the matter came up for final adjudication.
In view of above, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.