Indian Compressors Ltd VS Union of India

The case before the court involves M/s. Indian Compressors Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, filing a writ petition due to grievances against the actions of the respondents. These actions pertain to disqualifying the petitioner from participating in a tender issued by the respondents (referred to as Tender No. 33227). This tender was for the supply, installation, and commissioning of a skid-mounted, oil-lubricated helium gas recovery compressor along with essential spares. The deadline for tender submission was 27th December 2018, and the petitioner submitted their Techno Commercial and Price Bid on 22nd December 2018.

According to the Writ Petition, the petitioner also provided a scanned copy of the price breakup, as required under Clause 21.2.1 of the tender conditions. However, the petitioner claims to have received a communication from the respondents on 15th January 2019, stating that their bid has been disqualified due to non-submission of the price breakup. This disqualification is contested by the petitioner, who asserts that they had indeed submitted the required documentation within the specified timeframe.

The petitioner alleges that their disqualification is unjustified and seeks relief from the court. They argue that they fulfilled all necessary requirements and provided the requested documentation, therefore the decision to disqualify them is arbitrary and unlawful. The petitioner requests the court to intervene and overturn the disqualification, allowing them to participate in the tender process.

The petitioner, M/s. Indian Compressors Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed a writ petition against the respondents concerning their disqualification from a tender (Tender No. 33227) for supplying, installing, and commissioning a skid-mounted, oil-lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares. The tender’s deadline was December 27, 2018, and the petitioner submitted their Techno Commercial and Price Bid on December 22, 2018, including the required price breakup as per tender conditions. They received acknowledgment of their bid on December 27, 2018. However, on March 6, 2019, the petitioner was informed via email of their disqualification before the price bid was even opened, allegedly for deviating from price bid conditions.

The petitioner contends that according to the tender conditions, the price bid should have been opened only after evaluating the Techno Commercial Bid, and their bid was compliant with the purchase manual issued by the Directorate of Purchase and Stores, Department of Atomic Energy. They argue that the disqualification was arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and they had not breached any terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). Consequently, they seek to quash the communication dated March 6, 2019, from the respondents.

In response, the respondents have filed a detailed reply, stating that the petitioner indeed deviated from the conditions of the price bid. However, a comprehensive assessment of the respondent’s arguments and evidence is necessary to understand the full scope of their defense.

Overall, the petitioner alleges arbitrary disqualification, while the respondents maintain that the disqualification was justified due to the petitioner’s non-compliance with the tender conditions. This dispute raises legal questions regarding the interpretation and application of tender conditions, as well as constitutional principles of equality before the law.

The petitioner, M/s. Indian Compressors Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification by the respondents in relation to Tender No. 33227 for the supply, installation, and commissioning of a skid-mounted, oil-lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares. The petitioner submitted their Techno Commercial and Price Bid within the specified deadline, including the required price breakup as per tender conditions. However, they were disqualified via email before the price bid was even opened, allegedly for deviating from the conditions under the price bid head.

In response, the petitioner argues that their bid adhered to the purchase manual issued by the Directorate of Purchase and Stores, Department of Atomic Energy. They contend that the disqualification is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, asserting that they did not breach any terms and conditions of the tender notice.

The petitioner seeks the quashing of the communication dated 6/3/2019 issued by the respondents.

The respondents counter that the petitioner did participate in the tender process but was disqualified due to deviations from tender conditions. They clarify that bids not accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) would be rejected outrightly, as per Clause 45.1 of e-DPS-0-103 version 2018-2.

The price bid template attached to the NIT contained specific instructions, including not indicating GST rates, not filling the template properly, and not including documents related to the cost/price of blocked columns. Failure to comply with these instructions would result in summary rejection of bids.

The respondents maintain that the petitioner’s bid did not meet these requirements, leading to their disqualification.

Both parties have presented their arguments, and the matter is before the Court for adjudication.

The case at hand involves a writ petition filed by M/s. Indian Compressors Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in disqualifying them from a tender process (Tender No. 33227) for the supply, installation, and commissioning of a skid-mounted, oil-lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares. The petitioner submitted their Techno Commercial and Price Bid before the deadline of 27/12/2018, as per the tender conditions.

According to the petitioner’s submission, they provided all required documentation, including a scanned copy of the price breakup as specified in the tender conditions. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive disqualification via email on 6/3/2019, before the scheduled opening of the price bid. The disqualification was purportedly due to alleged deviations from the conditions under the price bid head.

The petitioner contends that their bid was in accordance with the purchase manual issued by the Directorate of Purchase and Stores, Department of Atomic Energy. They argue that the disqualification is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, asserting that they did not breach any terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The petitioner seeks to quash the communication dated 6/3/2019 issued by the respondents.

In response, the respondents contend that the petitioner did participate in the tender process but deviated from the tender conditions, leading to disqualification. They clarify that the contract pertained to the supply, installation, and commissioning of the specified compressor and spares. The respondents emphasize that failure to accept the terms and conditions stipulated in the NIT would result in outright rejection of the bid.

Specific instructions were provided in the NIT regarding the price bid template, including guidelines on GST inclusion, proper filling of templates, and indication of prices. Additionally, payment terms were outlined, specifying milestones for payment release. Upon examination, it was found that the petitioner’s bid did not comply with the tender conditions, notably regarding GST rates and payment terms.

The respondents maintain that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid was fair and reasonable given the observed deviations from the NIT terms. They argue that the decision was not arbitrary but based on the discrepancies found in the bid. Thus, they defend the communication dated 6/3/2019 as a justified action.

In summary, the petitioner seeks relief from the alleged arbitrary disqualification from the tender process, while the respondents assert the validity of their decision based on deviations from the tender conditions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: