After opening the technical bid, the CONCOR pre qualified two bidders, viz.,
The main plea taken in the writ petition was that the appellant did number meet the eligibility criteria as it did number have a liecence to act as surveyor loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938.
The second part was to companysist of the Financial Bid.
The second respondent, Container Corporation of India for short CONCOR floated a limited tender in December 2003 for hiring professional services for survey of companytainers and cargo at Inland Container Depot for short ICD , Tughlakabad, Delhi, for a period of 24 months.
As over the years the business had companysiderably increased, a private limited companypany by the name of Master Marine Services Pvt.
However, clause 12 of the Instructions regarding submission of tender provided that the CONCOR had the power to relax the tender companyditions and exercising power under the said clause, it had qualified both the bidders in public interest.
It was further pleaded that the major work 98 under the companytract is of data entry i.e. recording of companytainer number, seal number, companydition of seal and external companydition of companytainer on arrival and dispatch of companytainers from the ICD for which the appellant had quoted Rs.3.00 per companytainer against Rs.3.75 of the first respondent and for such kind of work numberlicense under IRDA is required.
Thereafter, the first respondent filed another writ petition on 27.5.2004 praying that the order passed by the second respondent awarding the companytract of survey of companytainers and cargo at ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and ancillary facilities to the appellant pursuant to the tender numberice dated 15.12.2003 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to the second respondent to award the said companytract to it first respondent .
The Tender Evaluation Committee for short TEC had deliberated upon the said fact and after taking into companysideration the fact that the appellant was known to be an established surveyor doing work of number of shipping lines and that Capt.
The main object of the companypany is to carry out ship, cargo and marine surveys and to act as loss assessors and technical companysultants.
Having regard to the fact that the bid offered by the first respondent for external survey of a companytainer, which is the main work, was 25 per cent higher than that of the appellant, the work was awarded to the appellant.
In the companypany 40.02 per cent shares are held by Capt.
He had in his name a license to act as a surveyor loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the CONCOR, it was pleaded that both the appellant and the first respondent did number fulfill the companyditions mentioned in the eligibility criteria in the tender.
Percy Meher Master had been appointed as Chairman of the Company by its Board, the tender companymittee took a decision that the financial bids of both the bidders be opened.
It was also stated that an agreement was entered into on 15.10.1997, whereunder Capt.
The technical bid was to be opened on 15.12.2003 and the financial bid was to be opened on 28.2.2004.
Subsequently, the said proprietorship companycern had been companyverted into a private limited companypany, of which Capt.
The first respondent had enclosed two IICL certificates, but the same were number in companyformity with the tender companyditions.
Percy Meher Master started a sole proprietorship business of marine and cargo surveyors by the name of Master Marine Services in February, 1983.
The first part was to companysist of Pre Qualification Bid, which was to be accompanied by various documents showing experience, companystitution of the firm companypany, turn over for past three years, a companyy of the license to act as surveyor loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938, besides other matters and earnest money in the form of bank draft pay order.
The bid of the appellant was Rs.3.00 per companytainer while that of the first respondent it was Rs.3.75 per companytainer and as the appellants bid was 25 per cent lower than that submitted by the first respondent, its bid was accepted and the work was awarded to it.
Thereafter, the financial bid was opened.
Percy Meher Master was appointed as Chairman.
The appellant also filed a companynter affidavit stating that Capt.
the appellant and the first respondent.
The special leave petition preferred by the first respondent against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 5.5.2004.
Ltd. was formed on 6.10.1997, which took over the entire business of the proprietorship companycern.
The fist respondent initially filed Writ Petition C No.3687 of 2004 before the Delhi High Court challenging the eligibility of the appellant to participate in the tender process, mainly on the ground that the appellant did number have a license to act as a surveyor loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938, and in support of this submission it was urged that on an earlier occasion, the bid submitted by the appellant had been rejected on the said ground.
The companytract was to be awarded through a two bid process.
Besides this, several other pleas were also taken including a plea that the second writ petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as an earlier writ petition filed by the first respondent had already been dismissed by the High Court and the special leave petition preferred against the said order had also been dismissed.
Ltd. was allowed and the companytract of work of professional services given by second respondent, Container Corporation of India in favour of the appellant was quashed.
P. MATHUR, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2004 of Delhi High Court, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent, Metcalfe Hodgkinson Pvt.
