Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
H- W.P.(C)7998/2016&CM 33134/2016 ^ MOONLIGHTNGO - ^Petitioner
Through; Mr Kirti Uppal,Sr.Adv.with MrPraveen
Singh,Mr Rajeey Gupta,Mr , ^ , , V Navlender Kr,Advs.
H- W.P.(C)7998/2016&CM 33134/2016 ^ MOONLIGHTNGO - ^Petitioner
Through; Mr Kirti Uppal,Sr.Adv.with MrPraveen
Singh,Mr Rajeey Gupta,Mr , ^ , , V Navlender Kr,Advs.
VERSUS
north DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
Through: : .....Respondents Mr Sunil Goel& Ms MiniPushkama, Standing Counsels for North DMC with
Ms SupireetBimbra,Ms Anushmti&Ms Vasundhara,Advs., W.P.(C)8028/2016&CM :33309-10/2016
CANCER AID AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND ANR
Through: : .....Respondents Mr Sunil Goel& Ms MiniPushkama, Standing Counsels for North DMC with
Ms SupireetBimbra,Ms Anushmti&Ms Vasundhara,Advs., W.P.(C)8028/2016&CM :33309-10/2016
CANCER AID AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND ANR
VERSUS
..... Petitioners'
Through Mr S;N.Tripathi,Adv. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR
Throiigh .
Respondents Mr Sunil Goel& Ms MiniPushkama, Standing Counsels for North DMC with
MsSupreetBimbra,MsAnushmti&Ms Vasuridhara,Advs.
Through Mr S;N.Tripathi,Adv. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR
Throiigh .
Respondents Mr Sunil Goel& Ms MiniPushkama, Standing Counsels for North DMC with
MsSupreetBimbra,MsAnushmti&Ms Vasuridhara,Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLiE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
16.09.2016 These petitions-have been filed by NGOs and they pertain to the issue of supply of niid-day meals in primary schools of North Delhi/ Municipal;
Corporation, An expression of interest was invited on 30.05.2016 by the North
2016:DHC:8946-DB Delhi Municipal Corporation in which the present petitioners in these two writ petitions along with others had expressed their interest. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that their offers have been rejected becaiise they do not have an annual financial turn over in the lasttwo years ofmore than Rs.3.5 crores. The relevant clause in the expression ofinterest is as under:
"31. Voluntary organization should have turnover for the last two financial years preceding the date of bidding as per details given below:
Units (No. Of students) proposed by the voluntary organization per day per kitchen
Amount of solvency required(in Rupees)
From 60,000 to 75,000 I.OO'Crore From 75,001 and above 1.50 Crore
It is the case of the petitioners that the above clause refers to the total turnover ofthe last two financial years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15. ,If this be the case, the petitioners have a cumulative turnover of more,than Rs.3.5 crores in respect ofthe above two years. However,the case ofthe respondents is that the turnover for the last two financial years has to be taken on ah annuaf basis and since the petitioners do not have an annual turnover ofRs.3.5 crores in each ofthe lasttwo financial years,they are not eligible. ;
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents on which our attention was drawn. On going through the same,it appears that even the officers of the respondents at various levels were unclear about the meaning of the said clause 31. Some of the officers, including the
Additional Commissioner (Finance), were of the view that the figure of Rs.3.5 crores was in connection ofthe cumulative turnover ofthe two financial years and did representthe average annualturnover ofeach ofthe two financial years.
We also find that clause 31 is not happily worded. Normally wherever a requirement of turnover is stipulated in expressions of interest or tender documents,the expression 'average annual' turnover or 'annual' turnover is used.
In the present case,neither the word'average' nor the word'annual' has been used to qualify the word 'turnover'. Moreover,the expression used is "turnover fw the last two financial years" has been used rather than "tuniover in the last two financial years". Ifthe latter expression had been used,jperhaps a clearer picture would have emerged and the respondents may have confidently stuck to their stand that the figure of Rs.3.5 crores refers to an 'annual turnover' and not to the cumulative turnoverforthe said two financial years.
Since there is scope for interpreting clause 31 in favour ofthe petitioners and that would not be an interpretation which is so outlandish that hp reasonable person could have arrived at, we feel thatthe petitioners' offers cannot be rejected ^ onthis score alone.Thisis ofcourse subjectto their fulfilling allthe other criteria.
Consequeritly, we allow these writ petitioris with the direction that the petitioners be also considered as eligible on the ground ofturnover and their offers - be considered subject to their complying with all other conditions.. In case the petitioners are entitled for an allocation of students for providing the mid-day meals,theyishaH be adjusted from the total number ofstudents. Consequently,the allocation given to,the other eight successful bidders and the present petitipners wPuld have to be adjusted in an equitable manner. , The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent. Parties shall bear their own costs. '
' Dasti..-" ;
JADAR DURREZAHMED,J ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J SEPTEMBER 16,2016
16.09.2016 These petitions-have been filed by NGOs and they pertain to the issue of supply of niid-day meals in primary schools of North Delhi/ Municipal;
Corporation, An expression of interest was invited on 30.05.2016 by the North
2016:DHC:8946-DB Delhi Municipal Corporation in which the present petitioners in these two writ petitions along with others had expressed their interest. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that their offers have been rejected becaiise they do not have an annual financial turn over in the lasttwo years ofmore than Rs.3.5 crores. The relevant clause in the expression ofinterest is as under:
"31. Voluntary organization should have turnover for the last two financial years preceding the date of bidding as per details given below:
Units (No. Of students) proposed by the voluntary organization per day per kitchen
Amount of solvency required(in Rupees)
From 60,000 to 75,000 I.OO'Crore From 75,001 and above 1.50 Crore
It is the case of the petitioners that the above clause refers to the total turnover ofthe last two financial years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15. ,If this be the case, the petitioners have a cumulative turnover of more,than Rs.3.5 crores in respect ofthe above two years. However,the case ofthe respondents is that the turnover for the last two financial years has to be taken on ah annuaf basis and since the petitioners do not have an annual turnover ofRs.3.5 crores in each ofthe lasttwo financial years,they are not eligible. ;
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents on which our attention was drawn. On going through the same,it appears that even the officers of the respondents at various levels were unclear about the meaning of the said clause 31. Some of the officers, including the
Additional Commissioner (Finance), were of the view that the figure of Rs.3.5 crores was in connection ofthe cumulative turnover ofthe two financial years and did representthe average annualturnover ofeach ofthe two financial years.
We also find that clause 31 is not happily worded. Normally wherever a requirement of turnover is stipulated in expressions of interest or tender documents,the expression 'average annual' turnover or 'annual' turnover is used.
In the present case,neither the word'average' nor the word'annual' has been used to qualify the word 'turnover'. Moreover,the expression used is "turnover fw the last two financial years" has been used rather than "tuniover in the last two financial years". Ifthe latter expression had been used,jperhaps a clearer picture would have emerged and the respondents may have confidently stuck to their stand that the figure of Rs.3.5 crores refers to an 'annual turnover' and not to the cumulative turnoverforthe said two financial years.
Since there is scope for interpreting clause 31 in favour ofthe petitioners and that would not be an interpretation which is so outlandish that hp reasonable person could have arrived at, we feel thatthe petitioners' offers cannot be rejected ^ onthis score alone.Thisis ofcourse subjectto their fulfilling allthe other criteria.
Consequeritly, we allow these writ petitioris with the direction that the petitioners be also considered as eligible on the ground ofturnover and their offers - be considered subject to their complying with all other conditions.. In case the petitioners are entitled for an allocation of students for providing the mid-day meals,theyishaH be adjusted from the total number ofstudents. Consequently,the allocation given to,the other eight successful bidders and the present petitipners wPuld have to be adjusted in an equitable manner. , The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent. Parties shall bear their own costs. '
' Dasti..-" ;
JADAR DURREZAHMED,J ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J SEPTEMBER 16,2016
JUDGMENT