AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was the sole tenderer, the bid was cancelled as there was no other eligible tender
received but when the second tender had been floated the benchmark has been raised. We may notice that requirement was 40,000 metric tons
for the previous financial year when the earlier tender was floated and the petitioner participated. Now the tender floated has the following eligibility
criteria:
Eligibility Criteria:
i) Mill must have produced a minimum of 75,000 Metric Tons Newsprint Paper during Two financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
The aforesaid shows that the eligibility criteria is of minimum production of 75,000 metric tons Newsprint Paper during the two financial years.
Thus the eligibility criteria has not become more stringent as the petitioner appears to suggest for the reason that the production has to be over a
period of two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an oral inquiry he was informed that it has to be 75,000 metric tons for each of the two
financial years. However, we find that the tender is not so framed, an aspect to which learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is in agreement with us.
We thus dispose of the writ petition in terms of aforesaid and thus if the petitioner meets the criteria of 75,000 metric tons of production in the
two financial years of 2010-11 and 2011-12, the petitioner would be eligible to submit the bid subject to fulfilment of all other requirements as per
the tender. Dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner under signatures of the Court Master.