2008 (12) TMI 777 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for tender.
2. Misrepresentation by the appellant.
3. Concept of joint venture and its applicability.
4. High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary:

1. Eligibility Criteria for Tender:
The appellant challenged the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court's judgment dismissing their writ petition, which contested the respondents' decision that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria for a tender for thick web switches. The tender required ISO 9001 certification and RDSO approval for 1 in 12 curved switch manufacturers on the date of opening the tender. The appellant argued that their manufacturing facility and prototype samples were approved by RDSO, and they possessed the necessary CNC machine, which was crucial for manufacturing TWS.

2. Misrepresentation by the Appellant:
The respondents contended that the appellant's initial approval was due to misrepresentation, which was later corrected. The appellant countered that the respondents did not specify what was misrepresented and highlighted the respondents' failure to disclose any falsehood in the appellant's representations. The High Court accepted the respondents' stance that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria, referencing Clauses 2.8, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 of the tender document.

3. Concept of Joint Venture and Its Applicability:
The appellant cited the case of New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. to argue that the experience of joint venture partners should be considered. The Supreme Court highlighted the concept of a joint venture, emphasizing that it involves a community of interest and shared risks. The Court noted that the appellant's joint venture partners had the necessary ISO 9001 certification and RDSO approval, which should be considered valid.

4. High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, as the appellant did fulfill the eligibility criteria. The Court directed the Evaluation Committee to reconsider the appellant's bid along with the other selected bidders and make a final decision.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Evaluation Committee must reconsider the appellant's bid, acknowledging the validity of the joint venture's credentials and the appellant's compliance with the tender's eligibility criteria.