Full Text
Translation output
.
'-' '
•
\ HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP (C) No.1963/2013 ESSEL SHYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
'-' '
•
\ HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP (C) No.1963/2013 ESSEL SHYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
VERSUS
PRASAR BHARTI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-1.
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
22.03.2013 CM No.3744/20 13 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.1963/2013 & CM No.3743/2013 (Stay)
The petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner does not know the fate of the bid/tender submitted by the petitioner for expansion of Doordarshan's DTH Platform from 59 to 97 channels at Todapur, New Delhi. We note with regret the practice which is repeatedly adopted by the Government and public sector enterprises of not immediately informing a party of their technical disqualification or fmal result with the result that there are two rounds of litigation in all these matters. The first round is to find out as to what is happening and to obtain relevant information and the second round is to
WP (C) No,J963/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB...
- challenge the tender. In the present case also the petitioner had addressed communication which remained unanswered.
We may note in this behalf that this Court had issued directions as far back 13.4.2012 in WP (C) No.2092/2012 calling upon the learned Standing
Counsel, Union of India to ensure that all Government departments are circulated a communication to disclose reasons in such cases where enquiries are made by a contracting party to avoid unnecessary litigation and a compliance report be filed within two (2) weeks. This direction had to be followed in every matter. In view of the present writ petition filed, we called for the file of WP (C) No.2092/2012 and find that the compliance as directed by us has not been filed in that writ petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 faced with the aforesaid position states that the current position is that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected and the fmancial bid of respondents 2 & 3 has been opened though the tender has not been awarded as yet. He assures that the reasons for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner will be communicated to the petitioner on or before 25.3.2013. He further states that the tender will not be finally awarded for a period of fifteen (15) days thereafter. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further assures that in future due care will be taken in this behalf.
The aforesaid statement is taken on record.
The statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 gives a window to the petitioner to assail the reasoning for rejection of the technical bid, if it so chooses.
We appreciate the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.1.
WP (C) No.l96312013 Page 2of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB t
The writ petition and the application accordingly stand disposed of.
Dasti to learned counsels for the parties under the signatures of the
MARCH 22, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) No.l963/2013 ~·~
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 3 of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
22.03.2013 CM No.3744/20 13 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.1963/2013 & CM No.3743/2013 (Stay)
The petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner does not know the fate of the bid/tender submitted by the petitioner for expansion of Doordarshan's DTH Platform from 59 to 97 channels at Todapur, New Delhi. We note with regret the practice which is repeatedly adopted by the Government and public sector enterprises of not immediately informing a party of their technical disqualification or fmal result with the result that there are two rounds of litigation in all these matters. The first round is to find out as to what is happening and to obtain relevant information and the second round is to
WP (C) No,J963/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB...
- challenge the tender. In the present case also the petitioner had addressed communication which remained unanswered.
We may note in this behalf that this Court had issued directions as far back 13.4.2012 in WP (C) No.2092/2012 calling upon the learned Standing
Counsel, Union of India to ensure that all Government departments are circulated a communication to disclose reasons in such cases where enquiries are made by a contracting party to avoid unnecessary litigation and a compliance report be filed within two (2) weeks. This direction had to be followed in every matter. In view of the present writ petition filed, we called for the file of WP (C) No.2092/2012 and find that the compliance as directed by us has not been filed in that writ petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 faced with the aforesaid position states that the current position is that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected and the fmancial bid of respondents 2 & 3 has been opened though the tender has not been awarded as yet. He assures that the reasons for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner will be communicated to the petitioner on or before 25.3.2013. He further states that the tender will not be finally awarded for a period of fifteen (15) days thereafter. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further assures that in future due care will be taken in this behalf.
The aforesaid statement is taken on record.
The statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 gives a window to the petitioner to assail the reasoning for rejection of the technical bid, if it so chooses.
We appreciate the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.1.
WP (C) No.l96312013 Page 2of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB t
The writ petition and the application accordingly stand disposed of.
Dasti to learned counsels for the parties under the signatures of the
MARCH 22, 2013 b'nesh WP (C) No.l963/2013 ~·~
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Page 3 of3 2013:DHC:7119-DB
JUDGMENT