Page 1 of 9

W.P.(C).5020 & 3110 of 2019 Page 1 of 9

$~31 & 32

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Judgment: 23rd May, 2019

+ W.P.(C) 5020/2019, C.M.24197/2019

DIN BANDHU DASS ..... Petitioner

versus

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 3110/2019, C.M.Nos.14274/2019 & 20002/2019

MESSRS. RASOI CANTEEN & CATERERS ..... Petitioner

versus

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. .... Respondents

Present: Mr.A.K.Mata, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sudharshan Kumar

Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in item no.31.

Mr.Raman Kapoor, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Joydeep Sarma, Advocate

for the petitioner in item no.32.

Mr.M.M.Singh and Mr.S.K.Pal, Advocates for the

applicant/intervenor in item no.31.

Mr.Aldanish Rein, Advocate for Delhi Technological

University in both the matters.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 5020/2019, C.M.24197/2019 (u/O 1 R 10 CPC)

W.P.(C) 3110/2019, C.M.Nos.14274/2019 (stay) & 20002/2019 (stay)

1. With the consent of the parties, we set out the writ petition for final

hearing and disposal.

Page 2 of 9

W.P.(C).5020 & 3110 of 2019 Page 2 of 9

2. Some of the facts pertaining to both the writ petitions are common. On

18.11.2018, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued for operation of

mess services to the hostels of the respondent. In terms of the NIT and

subsequent corrigendum issued by the respondent, the bid-submission

date was fixed for 21.12.2018 upto 2:00 p.m. Both the petitioners

participated in the tender by submitting their bids. The process of

bidding was through e-tendering. The petitioners had submitted their

bids through e-portal and hard copies of the documents were also

submitted in a sealed envelope.

3. It is the case of both the petitioners that after submitting their bids, they

waited for evaluation of their bids. However, the bids were not opened

by the Respondent. The petitioners made enquiries and were made to

understand that the process was going on and it would conclude soon.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 5020/2019, on 01.05.2019, received a letter

dated 27/28.04.2019 informing the petitioner as under:

“It is seen that on the basis of online Technical Bids received, only

2 vendors have technically qualified and out of which only 1

vendor has bided for all groups. Since as per GFR, Number of

Qualified Bidders are less than 3, therefore a Competent Authority

has decided that the present tender stands cancelled/foreclosed.

Fresh Tender for Mess services in DTU will be invited soon in due

course.”

5. Having received the said letter, the petitioner filed the present petition

seeking to quash the communication dated 27/28.04.2019 as well as a

direction to Respondent No. 1 to complete the tender process.

6. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 3110/2019 received a letter dated 18.02.2019

issued by Respondent No. 1 seeking certain clarification/documents from

the petitioner. The petitioner duly responded to the said letter vide its

Page 3 of 9

W.P.(C).5020 & 3110 of 2019 Page 3 of 9

reply dated 07.03.2019. It is averred that while submitting the reply on

07.03.2019, the petitioner noticed that some of the participants in the NIT

had submitted fresh documents in respect of their technical bid which is

not permissible. The petitioner further avers that he thereafter learnt that

the technical bids had been evaluated by the committee and three

participants had been shortlisted as being successful in the technical bid.

The petitioner also learnt that Respondent No. 2 who was the existing

contractor and whom Respondent No. 1 was wanting to favour was not

amongst the shortlisted tenderers and thus, Respondent No. 1 was

intending to cancel the tender process. The petitioner then again

submitted a representation to Respondent No. 1 but getting no response,

he filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing

respondent No. 1 to complete the tender process.

7. Mr.A.K.Mata, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

5020/2019, submits that reading of the aforesaid communication would

show that although the petitioner and other participants were found to be

qualified, but the tendering process was canceled as there were less than 3

eligible bidders. Learned senior counsel submits that the tender in

question was invited on the basis of General Financial Rules, 2017, which

is clear from the reading of para 8 of the tender conditions. As per GFR,

there is no bar in a single tender being accepted and there is no condition

that in every eventuality a minimum of three bids have to be there, failing

which the tender has to be cancelled. Learned senior counsel also argues

that there is a legal malice in the present case, inasmuch as, there is a

clear attempt to oust every other tenderer for the contract in question and

for the last several years, respondent no.2 is being continued for running