JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This petition was filed by the petitioners questioning the legality of the actions of the respondents 1 and 2 in entertaining the financial bids made by the consortium formed by respondents 4, 5 and 6 for the purposes of the subject tender. The petitioners also sought a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to award the contract in respect of the said tender to the Wipro-Nex Tenders Consortium. The petition was filed by only one member of this consortium namely Nex Tenders India Private Limited along with a shareholder thereof. The other member of the consortium, i.e. Wipro Limited was not even made a party to the present proceedings.
2. Detailed arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties with regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. Through out the proceedings, the petitioners gave the impression that the said Wipro Limited, although not a party to the present proceedings, was very much a member of the consortium and would be supporting the petitioners. However, when by an order dated 25.11.2005, Wipro Limited was added as a party as respondent No. 7, the events took a different turn. On 2.12.2005 the newly added respondent No. 7 (Wipro Limited) was represented by its General Manager, Mr Parthasarthy and he sought two weeks’ time to engage a counsel. On 6.1.2006 when the matter was again posted for hearing, Ms Anjali Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the said respondent No. 7 (Wipro Limited) and submitted that she had instructions to state that M/s Wipro Limited has no grievance against the award of the contract in terms of the tender notice in question to the consortium led by respondent No. 4, M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. On 6.1.2006, it was indicated that a short affidavit to this effect would also be filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7. As such, further arguments were closed and orders were reserved.
3. An affidavit of one Mr Saurav Ray, Regional Finance Manager of the respondent No. 7 of 12th January, 2006 has been filed. He has deposed that he is competent and fully authorised to make the said affidavit and a copy of the power of attorney executed in his favor has also been placed as Annexure ‘A’ to the said affidavit. The affidavit makes it clear that Wipro Limited does not have any objection in respect of the respondent No. 2’s decision to award the same to the consortium formed by respondents 4, 5 and 6. This makes it clear that the views of Wipro Limited with regard to the award of the contract to the consortium formed by respondents 4 5 and 6 are at variance with those of the petitioner’s even though Wipro Limited and petitioner No. 1 were consortium partners of the subject tender. Therefore, it is clear that in view of this turn of events the petition would no longer be maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 on its own, without its consortium partner (respondent No. 7), would not have the locus to maintain this petition.
4. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, however, submitted written submissions to the effect that the petitioners would still have locus standi to maintain this petition. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. And Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2006 1. SCC 442 and in particular, the petitioners referred to and relied upon paragraphs 26, 33, 34 and 40 of the said decision which read as under:-
26. An agent coupled with interest has a right to sue. He may in certain situations be sued as regards his own liabilities independent of his principal.
33. In Smith’s Leading Cases, Vol. II, P. 395 (12th Edn.) the following statement of the law is made:
But it is not merely in cases where the agent has contracted in his own name for an unnamed principal that he has a right, at law, to sue upon the contract, when he has made a contract in the subject-matter of which he has a special property, he may, even though he contracted for an avowed principal, sue in his own name.
34. If by a statutory provision the right of an agent to carry on his business is affected, he may, in our considered opinion, in his own right maintain an action.
40. If the appellants herein had a legal right, they could seek redressal for violation thereof before an appropriate forum. The locus standi to maintain a writ application even otherwise has received liberal interpretation. In the context of these observations, it was submitted that the petitioners have locus to maintain the present petition both, as the Consortium Partner and also as an agent of Wipro (Respondent No. 7). These observations, in our view, are not applicable to the factual position as obtaining in the present case. Firstly, they deal with a situation where an agent’s liability may be independent of his principal. Here, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 7 were Consortium Partners and the project was to be carried out by them jointly. To put it graphically, they were the two wheels of the chariot. Wipro (Respondent No. 7) is not objecting to the grant of the Award of the tender in favor of the consortium formed by respondents 4, 5 and 6. As such, one of the ‘wheels’ of the ‘chariot’ is not willing to turn. The ‘chariot’ cannot move any further only on the other ‘wheel’ petitioner No. 1. Thus, the reliance of the petitioners upon the aforesaid decision is misplaced. Because of the nature of the relief sought in the present petition, unless both the Consortium Partners, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 7, support the present petition, it would be an exercise of futility. For these reasons, we find that the writ petition is not maintainable and its pursuit would only be academic.
5. Before parting with this case, we would like to point out that we have taken on record an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 (Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and National Informatics Centre, respectively). In this affidavit, verified on 10.1.2006, it is clearly and categorically stated that in respect of the subject tender, the respondent No. 2 (NIC) would be procuring only one license copy at Zero cost from the successful vendor for customization and implementation of the NIC Portal.
6. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.