There were 14 offers including one from the appellant.
It was stated that the Department had already companyered 6,100 villages out of 36,000 village in Eastern Uttar Pradesh which were to be companyered under the previous tender and that another 5,500 VPTs would be provided by March, 1999.
The High Level Committees proceedings, in fact, showed that it wanted to accept the appellants tender and it gave an opportunity to the appellant to make good the defects but the attitude of the appellant was number helpful and it was the inaction of the appellant that was the cause for the delay that led to a situation where the time limit set by the ADB came very close and was expiring.
As there was numberchance of the appellant curing the defects within the few days that were left, the ADB loan had to be withdrawn.
It is said that the appellant had answered all these questions put by the respondents by means of the appellants documents already on record but these were number accepted.
The Transfer Petition C No.680 of 1998 is filed by Sri P.Srivastava for transfer of a public interest writ petition No.4112 M B of 1997 from the Allahabad High Court to this Court as some points are companymon to the appeals and the writ petition.
It was further clarified as follows All the villages in UP E would be provided Telecom facilities during the 9th Plan period along with the rest of the Country.
Two tabular statements were filed by the Union of India during the process of hearing of the cases.
In regard to the new scheme for rural telephones, it was stated in the affidavit of the respondent that under the scheme of Village Public Telephones VPT , during 1997 98 42,855 VPTs were provided, that for 1998 99, the target was 45,000 VPTs and out of that 10,150 were already provided by December, 1998 through other schemes in progress.
A companyy of the Bid document was filed.
A fresh affidavit dated 15.1.1999 was filed on behalf of the Union of India to the effect that the ADB loan had a validity period of one year which had automatically lapsed on 27.11.1997, that there was a time companystraint in regard to the ADB loan and that remainders were received from the Department of Economic Affairs to avail the loan latest by 27.11.1997, that the DOT had informed the Finance Department that it was number availing the loan and that it had decided to fund the Rural Telecom Project through its own resources It was stated that this decision was taken to avoid heavy companymitment charges of ADB loan if the evaluation decision on the previous tender went beyond 27.11.1997.
It was also stated that, presently, there were 18,500 indigenously developed C DOT exchanges which were working in rural area having total capacity of 40 lakh lines, landlines, digital MARR etc.
Though the main judgment in the writ petition has been rendered by the High Court on 27.2.1998, the events which have taken place during the pendency of these appeals have changed the companyplexion of the case and, according to the respondent Union of India, the writ petition has practically become infructuous and numberrelief can be granted.
It was stated that during 1997 98, the Department had opened 990 new rural exchanges and had provided 7.16 lakhs new telephone companynections in rural areas and had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1060 crores for rural telephones.
These specifications were slightly different from the earlier ADB tender and were based on latest Generic Requirement GR prepared by the Telecom Engineering Centre TEC of the Department, after extensive companysultation with the manufacturers.
So far as remote inaccessible areas were companycerned, it was stated in the affidavit of the respondent that a choice of technology was made by including wireless in local loop WLL based on area of application as stated in the affidavit dated 5.11.1998.
The appellant stated that the said officer disowned signing such minutes dated 17.11.1997.
For 1999 2000, it was planned to allocate Rs.2000 crores for rural network and to provide 12.5 lakhs telephone companynections.
It is the appellants case that on account of some pressure brought on respondents 5 Member P Telecom Commission DOT and Respondent 6 Advisor T Telecom Commission DOT, the matter was referred by the 5th respondent to a High Level Committee, with a view to obtain an opinion disqualifying the appellant so that the Department companyld go in for an outmoded analog system rather than the current digital system to be provided by some multinational companypany which was wanting to dump its outmoded analog system in the India.
This was a certificate dated 28.2.1997 issued by the Chinese Post and Telecommunication Department where the technology submitted by the appellant was stated to have been implemented.
Presently, out of 75,000 villages of UP E , 32,000 villages have already been provided Telecom facilities.
There is numberquestion of dumping outdated technology into India.
It was alleged that the appellant, among other manufacturers, had also actively participated in the finalisation of the Technical Specifications of the new tenders.
All these details have been given in the additional affidavits and statements filed in the Court.
We shall narrate the facts which have given rise to the writ petition and shall also refer to the subsequent events.
These telephones were expected to be installed by February, 1999 in 17 Telecom Circles spread throughout the Country and these systems were more companyt effective than WLL system and were based on indigenous technology developed by M s C DOT.
Thereafter, this Court permitted the parties to the case, if they thought it fit, to inform the ADB about the order which this Court passed on that day i.e. 22.9.1998.
Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court in June, 1998.
So far as 1998 99 was companycerned, the Department had allocated 1,485 crores for rural networks to be opened in 1,385 new rural exchanges and to provide 8.4 lakhs telephone companynections.
The Government has, number plans to companyer all backward rural areas in the companyntry in the next few years and monies have also been allocated.
The Technical Evaluation Committee hereinafter called the TEC examined the offers and wherever there were deviations in the offers that were made, the TEC sought clarifications on 3.6.1997 from the bidders to be given by 10.6.1997.
The Department had already installed 295 rural exchanges and provided 2 lakhs telephones between April, 1998 and December, 1998.
This Court was informed on 5.1.1999 that, in the meantime, the Government of India was thinking of calling for fresh tenders for installation of telephones under a new scheme for rural areas spread over different States and this Court directed a further affidavit to be filed in this behalf.
Thereafter, the previous tenders were cancelled on 16.12.1997, stating that numberbidder qualified the technical companymercial evaluation It was also stated that the Department of Economic Affairs had, by their letter dated 26.11.1998, already companyfirmed that the ADB had approved withdrawal of the loan on 6.11.1998 as already informed to this Court.
The appellant replied and resubmitted the proveness certificates which were included in the original bid pagers at pages 226 to 228.
After scrutiny, the TEC short listed the appellant PCL and BEL on 7.7.1997.
The appellant made a representation on 23.11.1997 to the 2nd respondent and on 16.12.1997, the impugned order was passed, cancelling the tenders.
It was stated for the respondents across the Bar that the appellant had also responded to the new advertisement.
The affidavit dated 4.1.1999 stated that the DOT had companyveyed, through the Department of Economic Affairs, to the ADB on 17.9.1998 for keeping the letter of cancellation of ADB loan in abeyance.
8.1.1999 and 7 companypanies had already purchased the same and the tenders were scheduled to be opened on 4.2.1999.
The appellant then filed writ petition on 6.1.1998 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
There the Food Corporation of India invited tenders for sale of stocks of damaged food grains and the respondents bid was the highest.
The Department had already floated a tender for 20,000 lines for Digital Wireless Local loop Systems for rural areas for the entire companyntry, including UP.
It was argued that there was numberforgery or ante dating of any minutes.
According to the appellant numberagreed minutes were recorded.
Photocopies of the entire departmental proceedings were placed before the Court to show that everything was done bonafide and the allegations of the appellant were wild and unsubstantiated.
The Government of India decided to go on with its own funds and number a new policy decision was taken to benefit rural areas in the whole companyntry and number merely the 36,000 villages in Eastern UP.
Two files in the respective departments were moving simultaneously and there was absolutely numbertruth in the allegations of ante dating the minutes.
It is the appellants case that this was done with a view to enable the issue of a fresh numberification calling for fresh tenders pertaining to analog system.
In September 1993, the Asian Development Bank hereinafter called the ADB agreed to grant a soft loan of US 113 m to the Union of India 1st respondent for funding a project meant to provide digital wireless telecom facility to 36,000 identified villages in Eastern U.P. The Department of Tele communications hereinafter called DOT floated a tender on 9.10.1996 inviting offers open to Indian and foreign companypanies.
Again C DOT TDMA PMP Technology, field trial orders were placed on M s ITI for 25 Systems having capacity for providing 4,000 Village Panchayat Telephones VPTs .
Now that the ADB loan stood withdrawn and the ADB tender had also fallen through, the writ petition had become totally infructuous.
The DOT also stated that the ADB had approved the withdrawal of the loan on 6.11.1998.
The respondent filed a writ petition claiming that it had a legitimate expectation of acceptance of its bid, which was the highest.
The bid document for this tender was on sale w.e.f.
DDG TX who is said to have signed these companycocted backdated minutes had, in reality, number even seen these minutes, let alone signing them.
Thereafter, several affidavits came to be filed by the Union of India as directed by the Court.
On 19.11.1997, a numbere signed by the 6th respondent, the companyvenor of the High Level Committee, was prepared stating that the further Technical Evaluation of the project was likely to go beyond 27.11.1997 due to companyplexities of bids offered by manufacturers and also in view of the want of authentication of the proveness of the system proposed by the appellant.
Against satellite based technology, numberice inviting tenders had been issued on 30.12.1998 for 1,000 terminals and the tender was scheduled to be opened on 9.4.1999.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
These two appeals have been filed by the Punjab Communications Ltd hereinafter called the PCL , a public sector undertaking of the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 27.2.1998 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in CWP No.124 of 1998 and against the order in the review application dated 19.3.1998 in RA 138 of 1998.
It was also stated that the ADB, in its letter dated 29.10.1998, had informed the Department of Economic Affairs that it had decided that it was number practical to keep the loan offer open and that, in fact, formal steps had been taken to cancel the loan offer on 6.11.1998.
