GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LIMITED Vs STATE OF M.P..
Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002907-002907 / 2011
Diary number: 23981 / 2010
Advocates: VIKAS MEHTA Vs
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2907 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.21899 of 2010)
Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. … Appellant Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant is a Public Limited Company which
claims to have an annual turnover of almost Rs.750
crores and has been carrying out large scale
infrastructure projects for various State
Governments in India, including Maharashtra and
Bihar, where bio-metrics of millions of people are
required to be collected to ensure identification
of the population which is targeted as
beneficiaries of various Government Welfare
Schemes, such as the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme. The Appellant Company has been
holding ISO 9001:2000 Certificate for the highest
quality standards in respect of the services
rendered by it. The Appellant Company claims to
have carried out a pilot project in respect of 10
shops in the State Government Public Distribution
System in Bhopal.
3. On 12th December, 2009, the Government of
Madhya Pradesh in the Department of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection, hereinafter
referred to as “FCS”, issued a Request for
2
Proposal, hereinafter referred to as “RFP”, for the
appointment of a vendor for District Mechanism for
Public Distribution System, hereinafter referred to
as “PDS”. The last date for submission of bids was
7th January, 2010, which was subsequently extended
till 17th February, 2010.
4. The RFP, as it stood at the time when the bids
were invited, included Section 3.1 which, inter
alia, provides that the bidder/one partner in the
consortium must possess a valid certification in
the Capability Maturity Model (CMM level 3 or
above). In addition, the bidder/all partners of
consortium (in case of consortium) should have an
active (valid at least till June, 2010) ISO
9001:2000 certificate which had to be submitted as
qualifying documents.
5. Subsequently, on 18th January, 2010, the pre-
qualification (Eligibility Criteria) provided in
the RFP was changed and the corrigendum, as far as
3
it relates to Section 3.1, was amended so that the
bidder/one partner in the consortium had to possess
a valid certification in the Capability Maturity
Model (CMM level 3 or above). In case of
consortium, the partner developing the software
application should have CMM level 3 certification
and the bidder/lead partners of the consortium (in
case of consortium, should have an active (valid at
least till June, 2010) ISO 9001:2000 certification
at the time of submission of the bid. The
documents to be submitted along with the bid
remained the same. Vide the corrigendum dated 18th
January, 2010, Section 7 which provided for the
Bidder Check List, was also altered. Prior to its
amendment, Section 7.1.1 provided that the
Company/one partner in the consortium (in case of
consortium) should have an active ISO 9001:2000
certification at the time of submission of the bid,
and it was also provided that a copy of the Quality
Certificate or documentation of the quality policy
4
were required to be provided along with the bid
document. It was also submitted that in case the
certificate was issued for renewal, the bidder
should ensure that the renewed certificate was made
available at the time of signing of the contract.
It was mentioned that in case the same was not
provided, the Department may consider initiating
the Award of the contract with the second lowest
bidder. The criteria relating to the documents to
be submitted as qualifying documents included a
copy of the quality certificate/documentation of
quality policy. The corrigendum dated 18th January,
2010, amended the said provision to indicate that
the bidder/one partner in the consortium must
possess a valid certification in the Capability
Maturity Model (CMM level 3 or above), in case of
consortium the partner developing the software
application was required to have CMM level 3
certification. It was further stated that the
bidder/lead partners of the consortium (in case of
5
consortium) should have an active (valid at least
till June, 2010) ISO 9001:2000 certification at the
time of the submission of the bid. The documents
to be submitted along with the bid remained
unchanged.
6. The question for decision in this case is
whether, on account of the corrigendum whereby the
provisions of Section 3 of the Tender documents and
Section 7 of the Bidder’s Check List were amended,
the appellant was, disqualified from consideration,
in view of the fact that along with the Tender
documents it had filed, through inadvertence or
otherwise, a copy of the ISO 9001:2000 certificate
of the previous year, instead of the current year,
although, it did have the said valid ISO 9001:2000
certificate at the time of making of the bid.
7. The case of the Appellant depends almost
entirely on the submission that on the date of
submission of the Bid, it had a valid and active
6
ISO 9001:2000 certification, but that through
inadvertence the expired certification of the
previous year had been filed along with the bid
papers.
8. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the Appellant Company, submitted that
even if no ISO 9001:2000 certification was filed
along with the bid documents, it would have made no
difference and the submission of the bid would have
been fully valid in view of Section 7.1.1, which
consists of the Bidder’s Check List and indicates
what were the requirements for a valid bid and what
supporting documents were to be submitted along
with the bid papers. Referring to Clause 9 of the
aforesaid Section, which deals with Quality
Certification, Mr. Salve pointed out that the
requirement of the said Clause was that the
Company/one of the partners of the consortium (in
case of consortium) should have an active ISO
7
9001:2000 certification at the time of submission
of the Bid. Mr. Salve submitted that the said
condition was duly satisfied by the Appellant who
had such a valid and active ISO 9001:2000
certification when the bid documents were filed.
9. Mr. Salve submitted that, although, one of the
conditions of the Tender document required that the
Quality Certification and the documentation of the
quality policy were to be provided along with the
bid documents as supporting documents, Clause 9
also provided that in case the certificate was due
for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the
renewal certificate was made available at the time
of signing of the contract. In case the same was
not provided, the department could consider
negotiating the award of contract with the second
lowest bidder. Mr. Salve submitted that it would
be clear from the said condition that it was not
absolutely necessary for the valid ISO 9001:2000
8
certification to be filed along with the bid
documents and that they could be filed before the
agreement was ultimately signed. Mr. Salve once
again reiterated that despite having such a valid
certificate, through inadvertence the previous
year’s certificate had been enclosed with the bid
documents. It was urged by learned Counsel that
this is not a case of a tenderer not having a valid
certification, as required, but a case of not
filing it with the bid documents, despite having
the same. Mr. Salve urged that in view of Clause 9
of Section 7.1.1, the Appellant’s bid documents had
been wrongly rejected at the Technical Bid stage,
without even considering the Financial Bid which
had been submitted by it.
10. In addition to the above, Mr. Salve submitted
that after the Financial Bids, except that of the
Appellant, were opened, the Appellant came to learn
that its offer was about 200 crores less than the
9
second-lowest tenderer to whom the contract was
ultimately given and that by awarding the contract
to the second lowest tenderer, the State of Madhya
Pradesh was incurring a loss of such a huge amount.
11. Mr. Salve urged that the aforesaid position
would be further strengthened from Section 3 of the
Request for Proposal which contained the pre-
qualification (eligibility) criteria relating to
technical, operational, functional and other
requirements. Mr. Salve submitted that Clause 3 of
Section 3.1 provides that the bidder/one partner in
the consortium must possess a valid certification
in the Capability Maturity Model, which condition
had been duly satisfied, and that all the partners
of the consortium (in case of consortium) should
have an active (valid at least till June, 2010) ISO
9001:2000 certification, at the time of submission
of the bid. Mr. Salve submitted that all those
documents to be submitted as qualifying documents,
10
included the Quality Certificate and ISO 9001:2000
certificate, and if the said condition is read with
the conditions contained in Clause 9 of Section
7.1.1 of the RFP, it would be seen that the
requirement of a valid ISO 9001:2000 certification
on the date of submission of the Bid documents was
duly satisfied in the Appellant’s case.
12. Mr. Salve also referred to the correspondence
between Shri Naveen Prakash, the representative of
the Wipro Consulting Services, which had been
appointed a consultant for the selection of
suitable candidates, and Shri Sandeep R. Chalke,
who was the Chief Executive of QAL International
Certification (India), which was the repository of
information relating to such certificates. Mr.
Salve pointed out that Shri Naveen Prakash had sent
an E-mail to Shri Sandeep R. Chalke, requesting
information as to whether Glodyne Technoserve Ltd.,
the Appellant herein, had a valid ISO 9001:2000
11
certificate at the relevant point of time. It was
pointed out that in reply, Shri Chalke informed
Shri Naveen Prakash on 10th April, 2010, that the
certificate of the Appellant as on the current date
was active and valid till 18th November, 2010, and
would continue to be valid thereafter if the
reassessment was conducted on or before 18th
November, 2010. Mr. Salve submitted that Shri
Naveen Prakash, as the representative of the
consultant, was present at every meeting of the
Committee which had been set up to oversee the
Tender process and on the date when the Appellant’s
bid was rejected on account of non-compliance with
Clause 9 of Section 7.1.1 of the RFP, he had
knowledge of the fact that the Appellant had a
valid and active ISO 9001:2000 certification which
would expire only on 18th November, 2009, unless
continued after reassessment.
12
13. Mr. Salve referred to the affidavit affirmed by
Shri Ajit Kesari, the Commissioner-cum-Director,
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, on 8th July,
2010, which clearly indicated that the Respondents
concerned had due notice of the fact that the
Appellant held an active ISO 9001:2000 certificate
which was valid till 18th November, 2009. Mr. Salve
submitted that the information received by Shri
Naveen Prakash from Shri Sandeep R. Chalke was
forwarded to Shri Ajit Kesari by E-mail on 4th
December, 2010, although, in the affidavit affirmed
by Shri Kesari it was sought to be stated that the
same had not been sent to the official E-mail
address of the Director, Food, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, nor to each Committee Member and was sent
to his personal E-mail address for information
only. Mr. Salve urged that whether it was sent to
the Director’s official E-mail address or his
personal E-mail address, the fact remains that Shri
13
Ajit Kesari had knowledge that the Appellant was in
possession of a valid and active ISO 9001:2000
certificate at the time of submission of the Bid
documents.
14. Mr. Salve also referred to the reply of Wipro
Ltd. to the writ petition filed by the Appellant
and pointed out that the manner and circumstances
in which Shri Naveen Prakash had obtained the
information that the Appellant Company held a valid
ISO 9001:2000 certificate had been spelt out in
Paragraph 5 of the said reply, which duly
corroborated the fact that the same information had
been passed on to Shri Kesari.
15. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.
Salve firstly referred to the decision of a Three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Tata Cellular Vs.
Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651], which laid down
certain tests in regard to the right of the Courts
to intervene in a Tender process. This Court,
14
inter alia, held that while the Court does not
normally interfere with the Government’s freedom of
contract, invitation of Tender and refusal of any
Tender which pertain to policy matters, when such a
decision or action is vitiated by arbitrariness,
unfairness, illegality or irrationality, then such
decision can be looked into by the Court since the
test was as to whether the wrong was of such a
nature as to require intervention. In this regard,
the Court laid down the areas of scope of judicial
review in paragraph 69 of the judgment. For the
sake of convenience, paragraph 69 of the said
judgment is extracted hereinbelow :
“69. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated, the following are the requisites of a valid tender :
1. It must be unconditional. 2. Must be made at the proper
place.
15
3. Must conform to the terms of obligation.
4. Must be made at the proper time.
5. Must be made in the proper form.
6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations.
7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection.
8. Tender must be made to the proper person.
9. It must be of full amount.”
16. Mr. Salve urged that the Bid documents
submitted by the Appellant fully satisfy the
aforesaid tests and the rejection of the
Appellant’s bid was unlawful and cannot be
sustained.
17. In this regard Mr. Salve also referred to the
decision of this Court in New Horizons Limited &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 478],
which set out the circumstances in which the Court
could lift the veil to ascertain the true nature of
16
a decision which had been taken in order to satisfy
itself that the same was not unjust and was not
opposed to the interest of revenue.
Reference was also made to the decision of this
Court in Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. &
Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 1], which was essentially a
decision in regard to the right of every
participant to a level playing field in respect of
Government contracts and the extent of judicial
review by the Court under Articles 32, 226 and 136
of the Constitution, in cases of illegality,
irrationality, procedural impropriety and
Wednesbury unreasonableness.
18. Mr. Salve urged that the rejection of the
Appellant’s Technical Bid for the reasons mentioned
above, was not supported by the terms and
conditions of the RFP and even the amendments
effect to the Bidder’s Response Form containing
17
Clause 7.1.1 that was changed by the Corrigendum
issued on 18th January, 2010, did not alter the
position. He urged that the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court, impugned in this
Appeal, was liable to be quashed.
19. Appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, the
learned Attorney General submitted that primarily
four issues fall for the determination in the
present case, namely,
(i) What is the relevance of Section 7 of
the Request For Proposal as far as
this Court case is concerned?
(ii) Does this case involve a mere mistake
and is such a mistake fatal as far as
the Appellant’s bid documents are
concerned?
(iii) What is the significance of Shri Navin
Prakash’s attempts to obtain
clarification about the Appellant having
18
a valid ISO 9001 Certificate on the date
of submission of bid documents? and
(iv) Even assuming that the Appellant
possessed a valid ISO 9001
Certification, was the same produced
before the Respondents?
Referring to Clause 3.1 of the RFP relating to
Pre-qualification (Eligibility Criteria), the
learned Attorney General submitted that both the
CMM Certificate and the ISO 9001:2000 Certificate
were listed as documents to be submitted as
qualifying documents and that the criteria set out
in the said form would have to be read accordingly.
In any event, the Bidder’s Check List was
completely changed by the Corrigendum which was
subsequently issued.
20. The learned Attorney General submitted that the
provisions of the RFP which had been initially
provided were subsequently altered which had the
19
effect of replacing the provisions relating to Pre-
qualification (Criteria Eligibility) contained in
Section 3 of the Request For Proposal and Section
7.1 containing the proforma of the Bidder’s
Response Form. The learned Attorney General
submitted that the Appellant could not, therefore,
rely any longer on the terms and conditions
indicated in the un-amended RFP since the
provisions of Sections 3 and 7 stood substituted by
the subsequent Corrigendum. In this regard, the
learned Attorney General referred to the unamended
provisions of Section 7.1 comprising the Bidder’s
Response Form wherein in paragraph 9, it has been
indicated as follows :-
“9. Qualify Certification – The Company/one of the partners of Consortium (in case of Consortium) should have an active ISO 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. A copy of the Quality Certificate or documentation of the Quality Policy needs to be provided along with the bid document. In case the certificate is due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate
20
is made available at the time of signing of contract. In case the same is not provided, the Department may consider negotiating the award of contract with the L2 bidder.”
The aforesaid paragraph indicates that a copy
of the Quality Certificate/document of quality
policy would have to be submitted along with the
bid documents, with the relaxation that in case the
quality certificate was due for renewal, the bidder
should ensure that the renewed certificate was made
available at the time of signing of the contract.
The learned Attorney General submitted that
although a good deal of reliance had been placed by
Mr. Salve on the said provisions, the same was
altered by the first corrigendum, which in
paragraph 8 of the Bidder Information Sheet
indicates as follows :-
“8. Bidder should have active ISO 9001:2000 Certification at the time of submission of Bids. Copies of the certificates or briefs on Quality policy & System being followed to be provided.
21
In case the certificate is due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate is made available at the time of signing the contract. In case the same is not provided, the Department may consider negotiating the award of contract with the L2 Bidder.”
21. The learned Attorney General then contended
that even the said provision was replaced by a
fresh corrigendum, wherein in paragraph 3 of the
provision relating to “Turnover” it was differently
provided as follows:-
“3. The Bidder/one partner in the consortium must possess a valid Certification in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM Level 3 or above). In case of consortium, the partner developing the Software Application should have CMM Level 3 Certification. The Bidder/Lead Partners of consortium (in case of Consortium) should have an active (valid at least till June 2010) ISO 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid.”
22. The learned Attorney General urged that once
the provisions relating to the Bidder’s Response
Form contained in Section 7.1 stood substituted by
22
the Corrigendum and the provision relating to
Quality Certification stood altered omitting the
relaxation given regarding filing of documents with
the tender papers, it was no longer open to the
Appellants to rely on the unamended Form.
23. The learned Attorney General also submitted
that Shri Navin Prakash had collected the
information regarding the ISO 9001 Certification of
the Appellant Company on his private initiative and
not under the instructions of the Tender Advisory
Committee. Furthermore, the said information was
not divulged by him at the meeting which was held
at 2.15 p.m. on the same day when the said
information was received. Referring to the
Disqualification Clause contained in paragraph
4.11.6 in the Request For Proposal, the learned
Attorney General pointed out that the proposal of
the bidder was liable to be disqualified if, inter
alia, the bid received from him was in incomplete
23
form or not accompanied by the bid security amount
or by all requisite documents. He also referred to
paragraph 5.2 under Section 5 which deals with
proposal evaluation and lays special emphasis on
the provisions under technical evaluation which set
out that the said bid would be rejected if it did
not meet the pre-qualification criteria. The
learned Attorney General submitted that there was
no provision at the time of technical evaluation
for relaxation of the pre-qualification criteria.
24. In support of his aforesaid submission, the
learned Attorney General firstly referred to the
decision of a Three-Judge bench of this Court in
Siemens Public Communication Network Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 16 SCC 215], wherein
while considering the decision making process of
the Government or its instrumentality in awarding
contracts, it was held that such process should
exclude the remotest possibility of discrimination,
24
arbitrariness and favouritism and the same should
be transparent, fair, bona fide and in public
interest. It was also held that it is not possible
to re-write entries in bid documents and read into
the bid documents terms that did not exist therein.
25. Reference was also made to another decision of
this Court in Ram Gajadhar Nishad vs. State of U.P.
[(1990) 2 SCC 486], wherein it was held that the
effect of non-compliance of a mandatory condition
in a Tender notice was fatal and the fact that the
Appellant’s Tender was not opened, accordingly, did
not call for interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
26. The learned Attorney General lastly referred to
the decision in Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa
Buildcon Ltd. & Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 9], where
similar views had been expressed in relation to the
acceptance of the lowest bid by the Respondent No.2
University, despite the fact that such bidder had
25
failed to furnish pre-qualification documents
within the specified time. This Court held that
the judgment of the High Court setting aside the
decision of the University was improper as the said
tenderer was itself to blame as it was late in
submitting the required documents by three days and
the Respondent No.2 University was justified in not
opening the tender submitted by it. This Court
observed that the lowest tenderer could not make
any grievance as the lapse was due to his own
fault. This Court noticed that of the three
bidders who had responded to the tender notice, one
stood disqualified at the threshold and the lowest
tenderer stood disqualified for having filed the
requisite documents three days late. In effect,
the Appellant in the said case ultimately turned
out to be sole bidder and his bid was accepted,
being the lowest among all the eligible bids.
26
27. Referring to the decision in the Tata Cellular
case (supra), cited on behalf of the Appellant
Company, the learned Attorney General pointed out
that the said case was not a case of omission, but
of breach of the mandatory condition of filing
certain documents which were required to be filed.
28. The learned Attorney General submitted that the
order of the High Court impugned in the present
appeal did not suffer from any infirmity which
required any interference by this Court.
29. The submissions made by the learned Attorney
General were reiterated by Mr. Paras Kuhad,
appearing for the Respondent No.4, HCL
Construction Ltd, which was impleaded as a
Respondent by this Court on 3rd August, 2010.
Mr. Kuhad submitted that having regard to the
fact that a Corrigendum had been issued by
which the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 and 7.1
had been completely substituted, it was no
27
longer open to the Appellant to place reliance
on the same since the said provisions no longer
existed. Mr. Kuhad contended that the
submissions made on behalf of the Appellant
Company with regard to the conditions in the
Bidder’s Response Form and the Bidder’s Check
List, as it stood prior to the Corrigendum
having been issued, was devoid of substance and
the same had been made only to be rejected.
30. Mr. Kuhad pointed out that once the work had
been entrusted to the Respondent No.4, it had taken
various steps in establishing the District
Mechanism for Public Distribution System in Madhya
Pradesh. It was urged that in that regard steps
had been taken for Data Digitization Application
Development, Preparation of Pre-Enrolment Data,
Training and Certification of Operators,
Establishment of Enrolment Camps, Biometric
Enrolment of Beneficiaries, Data Transfer to UID,
28
Generation of Aadhaar/UID Number and Mapping of EID
number to UID number. Mr. Kuhad urged that the
steps which were yet to be completed related to the
loading of the data to the server and for
preparation of the Ration Cards and for issuance of
the same and also Food Coupons printing and
distribution and retrieval thereof. It was
submitted that at this advanced stage, it would be
highly inequitable if the public distribution
supply project in Madhya Pradesh was interfered
with.
31. Replying to the submissions made on behalf of
the Respondents, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior
Advocate, urged that the Corrigendum which was
issued by the Respondents was not a replacement, as
had been contended both by the learned Attorney
General as well as Mr. Kuhad, but an addition to
what was already in existence. Mr. Shyam Divan
reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Salve that
29
the clause relating to filing of certificate of
registration even at the stage of signing of the
agreement was valid and capable of being acted
upon. Mr. Divan contended that the only change
which was effected by the Corrigendum in regard to
the Bidder’s response clearly indicated that the
Corrigendum related only to the introduction of
Lead Partners in case of Consortium and that in
case of a Consortium, the partner developing the
software application should have CMM Level 3
Certification. It was submitted that in any event,
in the absence of clarity, the benefit should go to
the Appellant and its bid ought not to have been
rejected at the Technical bid stage.
32. Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined
to accept the submissions made by the Attorney
General that the introduction of the Corrigendum
completely changed the provision in the Bidder’s
30
Response Form relating to submission of the Quality
Certificate in the form of an active ISO 9001:2000
certification. In any event, the appellant’s
contention based on clause 9 of Section 7.1.1 of
the RFP as it stood prior to corrigendum is
misconceived. The said clause 9 specifically
provided:
“…..A copy of the Quality certificate or documentation of the Quality policy needs to be provided along with the bid document. In case the certificate is due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate is made available at the time of signing of contract. In case the same is not provided, the Department may consider negotiating the award of contract with the L2 bidder.”
The above provision obliges a tenderer to produce
along with the bid document a copy of the Quality
certificate which is valid and active on the date
of submission of the bid and it does not enable a
bidder to withhold the copy of such Quality
Certificate. Where the Quality certificate will be
expiring shortly and is due for renewal, the bidder
31
is also obliged to produce the renewed certificate
at the time of signing of the contract. The
appellant claimed to have a valid and active ISO
9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of
the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said
certificate along with the bid document.
33. The submissions made on behalf of the Appellant
proceeds on the basis that it was entitled, almost
as a matter of right, not to submit the documents
required to be submitted along with the bid
documents on the supposition that, even if such
documents were valid and active, they could be
submitted at the time of signing of the Memorandum
of Understanding. The Appellant had a valid and
active ISO 9001:2000 certification which it did not
submit along with the Bid documents, may be due to
inadvertence, but whether such explanation was to
be accepted or not lay within the discretionary
powers of the authority inviting the bids. The
32
decision taken to reject the Technical Bid of the
Appellant cannot be said to be perverse or
arbitrary. We need not refer to the decisions
cited by the learned Attorney General or the
Appellant in this regard, as the principles
enunciated therein are well-established.
34. Even the question as to whether Shri Naveen
Prakash of the consultant agency had obtained
information that the Appellant had a valid and
active ISO 9001:2000 certification and had passed
on such information to Shri Kesari, does not make
any difference, since the same was never asked for
or placed before the Tender Advisory Committee
constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the
Bids despite the presence of Shri Naveen Prakash at
the meeting of the Advisory Committee at 2.15 p.m.
on the same day.
33
35. We are not, therefore, inclined to entertain
the appeal, which is dismissed, but without any
order as to costs.
…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
…………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi Dated: 4.4.2011
34