Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 30: In a petition filed by UTAIR India Pvt Ltd, seeking quashment of Tender Notice No. MY/HY/A-02 of 2016 dated 20.05.2016 for providing helicopter service for Hud/Machail Mata Yatra with effect from July 6, 2016 to July 15, 2016 and August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016, with a direction to the official respondents to allot the contract in favour of petitioner being the lowest bidder in pursuance to earlier Tender Notice No. MY/HY/K-01 of 2016 dated 3-3-2016.
State High Court directed official respondents that while allotting contract to the eligible contractor, official respondents are directed to strictly follow the DGCA Rules and adhere to the terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned tender notice.
The facts, as projected in the writ petition, are that although petitioner is an Indian Company but is a 100% subsidiary of U-Tair Aviation JSC, Russia, which is the biggest Helicopter Company and a major world Helicopter Operator. The parent company of the petitioner has an annual turnover of upto US$ three billion and has more than 40 years of experience. It is contended that it was also awarded the contract of providing Helicopter Service during the Machail Yatra for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the same was successfully executed by it.
It is averred that Divisional Commissioner, Jammu issued Tender Notice No.MY/HY/K-01 dated 31.03.2016 for providing helicopter service for Hud/Machail Mata Yatra with effect from 20.07.2016 to 31.08.2016, which was subsequently revised to 06.07.2016 to 15.07.2016 and 01.08.2016 to 31.08.2016 and the last date for submission of the bids was 21.04.2016 upto 1.00 pm. It is averred that apart from the petitioner, three more companies responded to the NIT, which are Global Vectra Helicorp Limited (GVHL), Summit Aviation Private Limited and Heritage Aviation Private Limited. It is averred that although the technical bids of all the bidders were opened but the Tender Evaluation Committee, respondents 3 to 10 herein, did not declare the result. It is further averred that though Global Vectra Helicorp Limited, Summit Aviation Private Limited and Heritage Aviation Private Limited were not eligible to participate in the bidding process, yet respondent No.3 allowed these companies to participate without relaxing the eligibility conditions. It is averred that constrained by the circumstances, the petitioner filed OWP No.790/2016 on 19.05.2016, and this Court vide order dated 20.05.2016 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the official respondents to strictly adhere to the eligibility conditions contained in tender notice dated 31.03.2016 while allotting tender to the eligible bidder. It is averred that the official respondents on the same very date, i.e., 20.05.2016 opened the financial bids and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. The grievance of petitioner is that instead of allotting tender in its favour, respondent No.3 issued fresh Tender Notice bearing No.MY/HY/A-02 of 2016 dated 20.05.2016, impugned herein, for the same contract work.
State High Court after hearing Senior Advocate RK Gupta with Advocate Rahul Pant appearing for the petitioner whereas Advocates Sudershan Sharma and Sanjeev Padha appearing for the private respondent observed that a plain reading of above communication would reveal that the representative of petitioner was also present in the meeting when it was decided to cancel NIT dated 31.03.2016 and reissue the tender and the representative had also consented for the same. Therefore, looking from any angle, I do not see any reason to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has been treated unfairly or that the official respondents have adopted a total arbitrary, malicious or malafide approach in rejecting the claim of petitioner and floating fresh Tender Notice dated 20.05.2016.
Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed along with the application for stay. Connected miscellaneous petitions accordingly stand disposed of. However, while allotting contract to the eligible contractor, High Court directed official respondents to strictly follow the DGCA Rules and adhere to the terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned tender notice.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel