Gujarat High Court High Court

Brand vs Gujarat on 5 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Brand vs Gujarat on 5 August, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10202/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10202 of 2011
 

 
======================================
 

BRAND
TRADING (INDIA) PVT LTD - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
RURAL INDUSTRIES MKTG CORP.LTD. & 1 - Respondents
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR MIHIR
THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR
DC DAVE WITH MR ANKUR Y OZA for Petitioner. 
None for
Respondents. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/08/2011 
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. We
have heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior counsel assisted by
learned counsel Mr. Dhaval C. Dave, Mr. Ankur Oza and Mr. Dipak
Sabharwal for the petitioner.

2. By
means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged grant of
tender in favour of respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent
No.2’s technical bid has illegally been accepted though as per
specifications provided in the tender notice in Tender No.17
(Annexure 2 to the writ petition) in Clause 5 – Technical
Qualification Requirements (Eligibility Criteria) of sewing machines
of Quality specified, which has been mentioned at page 61 of the
petition wherein the machine has to adjust length of stitches as well
as to get patterns of stitches. Minimum 18 in built stitches
patterns is required to be the capacity of the machine.

3. According
to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, sewing machines of the
respondent No.2 could adjust length of stitches but it could not get
18 in built stitches patterns. Therefore, according to learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, the technical bid of respondent
No.2 has illegally been accepted as he was not qualified for
technical bid and, therefore, there was no question of opening of
financial bid of respondent No.2. He states that he has heard that
contract has been awarded to respondent No.2, but order has not yet
been placed to respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1.

4. In
view of the urgency of the matter, issue RULE. List this matter on
09.08.2011 to enable both the respondents to appear and file their
affidavit-in-reply.

5. If
order in pursuance of the contract awarded to respondent No.2 has not
yet been placed by respondent No.1, the same shall not be placed till
09.08.2011. D.S. permitted today.

Sd/-

[V. M. SAHAI, J.]

Sd/-

[G. B. SHAH, J.]

Savariya

   

Top