The Animals Welfare Society Regd. Delhi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

T.S. THAKUR, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 11, 2008 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8737/2007 Date of Decision: March 11, 2008. The Animals Welfare Society Regd., Delhi .... Petitioners Through Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advs. versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. for R-4 Ms. Sumita Kapil, Adv. for R-2/MCD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Not Necessary 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Not Necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary T.S. Thakur,J The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for running of what is called a "Rendering Plant" suffers from any illegality or procedural irregularity. According to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the bid offered by the petitioner society was rejected as it did not have the experience or the financial capacity to run the plant in question. The challenge to the order of rejection is not therefore well founded, argues the Corporation. Before we examine that aspect, we may set out the factual backdrop in which the controversy arises. 2. The respondent Corporation is constructing a modern slaughter house at Ghazipur pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The rendering plant in question forms a part of the said project. The setting up of the slaughter house and the rendering plant is being monitored by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in public interest proceedings pending before the apex Court. 3. The respondent Corporation appears to have invited expression of interest from reputed experienced & financially strong parties for the running and maintenance of the rendering plant, in response whereto, the following four parties came forward to express their interest in the running said plant: (i) M/s Hind Agro Industries; (ii) M/s (respondent No.4); (iii) M/s Consortium Engineering Pvt. Ltd.; and (iv) Animal Welfare Socity (Regd.) (Petitioner) 4. A pre-qualification Committee constituted by the MCD for short-listing the firms examined. The credentials of the above concerns and found that the petitioner society did not have the requisite experience or the financial backing necessary for an efficient running of the said plant. The remaining three concerns were found to have the requisite experience and the financial backing to undertake the work in question. The requisite documents for submission of the bids were accordingly issued to the said three parties to enable them to submit their technical and financial offers by the 27th June, 2005. 5. When the tender box was opened on 27th June, 2005 at 3:00 PM, only one offer made by respondent No.4 which was examined by the Evaluation Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Director (H&A). The Committee found respondent No.4 was found in the same to be technically competent to run the rendering plant, but since a single tender situation had arisen on account of the failure of the remaining tenderers to make their offers, all the pre-qualified tenderers were given one more chance to submit their offers by 7th September, 2005 in the office of the ACA, Veterinary Services, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. When the tender box was opened again on 7th September, 2005, it was noticed that no new bid had been received. The Commissioner of MCD however appears to have called and persuaded the remaining two pre-qualified bidders to participate in the bid despite which they did not respond. The commercial bid of respondent No.4 was eventually opened on 23rd September, 2005 in the office of the Assistant Chief Accountant (Veterinary Services). The bid contained an offer to provide a monthly lease rent of Rs.12,01,050/- on the terms and conditions contained in the tender documents. The MCD by its resolution dated 30th March, 2006 eventually approv