HC dismisses writ petitions on Cyberage tenders

HC dismisses writ petitions on Cyberage tenders
HERALD REPORTER
PANJIM, MARCH 30 
Notwithstanding the allegations made with regard to the tender of Cyberage, the Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed the writ petitions challenging the terms and conditions of the tenders and the award of the contracts for supply of computer hardware/software under Cyberage Student scheme (Edunet) and Computer Literacy Programme (CLP).
One petition was filed by Goa IT Business Association which demanded a CBI inquiry in the issue. Two other petitions were filed by Mandar Dilip Manjarekar and M/s Ameya Computers.
Government of Goa, Director of Education besides the firms who bagged the contract was among the respondents.
The petitioners had challenged various clauses in the tender stating that the same were arbitrary, malicious and constituted with intent to favour certain past suppliers.
The first notice inviting tenders was for supply of 4320 computers for CLP project while the second was for procurement of 11,000 computers for the Cyberage project.
The Division bench comprising Mr Justice S J Vazifdar and Mr Justice U D Salvi ruled that the Directorate of Education and the government of Goa “were entitled to ensure the ability of the bidder to supply such a large quantity of computers. The presumption that a bidder with an annual turnover of a minimum of Rs 5 crore during the last financial year would be better suited and more reliable to meet the contractual demand is justified, reasonable and relevant.
Similarly, it further said that “the stipulation limiting the class of bidders to those who had supplied, installed or maintained through a single order at least 1000 PCs during the last three years was to test if not ensure the ability of a bidder to supply such a large order”.
Disagreeing with the contention of the petitioners, the High Court stated that the past record of a supplier as a test or indication of his ability to perform a contract successfully was relevant. The mode of testing the ability of a party to successfully perform a contract ought to be left to the client w ho in this case are – Directorate of Education ad Government of Goa.
Regarding the allegation of favouritism, the court said that the clauses included cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary as no malafide had been established.
Besides, with reference to the objection raised by the petitioners to the reserved category wherein the department reserved a quota for previous years’ suppliers, the high court said that the Directorate of Education and Government of Goa were justified “in proceeding on the basis that a successful supplier under the same scheme for the previous year would b able to execute the present order successfully obviating the need for many checks and balances”.
While dismissing the petitions, the court said that the contention that the previous successful suppliers did not have to meet any requirement is unfounded. Clause 5 of the scheme states, inter alia, that the said suppliers would be required to participate in the tender process, qualify the tender requirements and match the L1 rates”.
Adv Mahesh Amonkar appeared for Goa IT Business Association while Advocate General Subodh Kantak with M Salkar, additional government advocate represented the government and Education department. Adv MS Sonak and Adv ANS Nadkarni with D Lawande appeared for the other parties.