C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment will dispose of two writ petitions being C. W. P. No. l706/96 (VXL Engineers Ltd. v. Department of Telecommunications and others) and CWP No. 3013/96 (P. S. Measuremeats and Controls and another v. Deptt. of Telecommunications and others) as these petitions raise common questions. The Petitioners in CWP No. 3013/96 earlier approached the Karnataka High Court jbut the petition was peitted to be allowed to withdrawn with liberty to approach an appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Therefore, this petition was filed in this Court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner company (C. W. 1706/96) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Tele Communication Equipments and is alleged to be a major supplier of the said products to respondent No. I as also to the Defence Services. Petitioner No. 1 in C. W. P. 3013/96 is a proprietory concern and. petitioner No. 2 is a private limited company and the petition is filed by one of its shareholders. The said petitioners are manufacturers of Telecom equipments. The petitioners are challenging the acts of respondents 1 and 2 in awarding to respondents 3 to 7 90 per cent of the contract for supply of transmission instruments viz. Digital Transmission Analysers (DTA)34 Mb/s and 140-MB/s without Jitter against tender No. 14-14/94-MMT (OF) and placing advance purchase orders on the said respondents in preference to the petitioners who are equally qualified in all respects and were duly certified as such to supply the said equipments and at rates substantially lower to the rates quoted by respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Respondent No. 1 had called for two tenders each bearing No. 14-11/94-MMT (L) and 14-14/94-MMT (OF ). Both these tenders were invited for supply of transmission instruments viz DTA 140- Mb/s without Jitter and DTA 34-MB/s- without Jitter. The following factual averments as made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of CWP No. 1706/96 may be reproduced as follows: "4. Against Tender No. 14-14/94-MMT (OF), for supply Optical Fibre Test Instruments, the petitioner vide its letter dated April 28, 1995, offered to supply to respondent No. 1, the following instruments manufactured by the petitioner. A) Digital Transmission Annalyser Model VE8306 for 704 Kb/s, 2,8 and34 Mb/s without Jitter. B) Digital Transmission Analyser Model VEB303-34 for 2,8 and 34 Mb/s without Jitter. A) Digital Transmission Annalyser Model VE8306 for 704 Kb/s, 2,8 and34 Mb/s without Jitter. B) Digital Transmission Analyser Model VEB303-34 for 2,8 and 34 Mb/s without Jitter. C) Digital Transmission Analyser Model VE 8307 for 2, 8,34 and 140 Mb/s without Jitter. . D) Digital Transmission Analyser Model VE8303-140 for 2,8,34 and 140. Mb/s without Jitter. E) Distal Transmission Analyser Model VE8300 for 704 Kb/s, 2 and 8 Mb/s without Jitter. WITH its said letter dated 28th April 1995, the petitioner enclosed its supply records, so as to draw the attention of respondent. No: 1 to the fact that even against previous orders, the petitioner had supplied all the instruments much before the delivery period. RESPONDENT No. 1 was informed that the petitioner s infrastructure assessment for various Testing Instruments including the DTA s was Completed by Telecom Engineering Centre, New Delhi, vide their Infrastructure Assessment No. 41-23/92-TEC dated 25th September, 1992. Moreover, the instruments mentioned under serial Nos. 2 and 4 of the Bid documents were Type Approved by the Telecommunication Engineering Centre, New Delhi, against various DOT supply orders and the petitioner had supplied large quantities of the said models to respondent No. l, well within the original delivery period. . RESPONDENT No. 1 was further informed of the material fact that since the Infrastructure Assessment of the petitioner had been completed and the petitioner had supplied large quantities of Test Instruments including DTA s were enough documentary evidence of the fact that the petitioner has the financial, technical and production capability necessary to perform the contract. WITH its said letter dated 28th April 1995, the petitioner submitted the Bid Form, Bank Guarantee and various other documents and information required to be furnished to respondent No. 1. 5. On 8th May 1995, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Director General (NRC), Telecom Engineering Centre for Type Approval of the DTA s offered to be supplied, by the petitioner, against the tender and which was granted to the petitioner on 31st October, 1995. Type Approval is given by Telecommunication Engineering Centre of respondent No. 1 to confirm that the product fully meets technical requirements and is a validated product fit for use in the telecom network. " THE petitioners participated in these tenders and Filed their respective applications as per the requirements as indicated in the Tender Notice. The necessary documentary proof was also submitted. " THE petitioners participated in these tenders and Filed their respective applications as per the requirements as indicated in the Tender Notice. The necessary documentary proof was also submitted. The bids were opened on January 3,1995 and May 9, 1995 respectively. Apart from the petitioners there were 20 other bidders who had. participated in these tenders. All the applications of the bidders for tender No. 14. 14/94-MMT (OF) were submitted to a Tender Evaluation Committee (for short TEC) to evaluate the bids. The TEC submitted its report on September 11,1995 and it is alleged that without taking into consideration the documentary proof produced by the petitioners along with the applications it failed to consider their bids. The necessary representations were Filed as it was alleged that the TEC proceeded to hold that petitioners were not responsive under a mistaken impression despite their producing the documentary evidence in support of the technical requirements. The Hon ble Minister accepted their representations and referred the matter to the Tender Evaluation Committee to have a fresh look. The representation was submitted on September 13, 1995 and the order of the Minister as made on October 27, 1995 reads as follows: "m/s Measurements and Controls vide their letter placed on the file. have represented against evaluation done by T. E. C. regarding Package No. 1 and III in which they are stated to have been declared non-responsive. According to them their products have got type approval and the DOT would be saving nearly 20 crores of rupees if their products which are type approved are considered for placing Order I would like the case to be re-examined vis-a-vis the representation of M/s Measurements and Controls so far Package No. 1 and III are concerned. The case may please be put up within a weeks time. AS regards Package No. XI, I find that the firms at L-6, L-7 and L-8 have got type approval and assuch they should be given benefit of having type approval especially in view of the position explained at side portion marked q at page 9/n. I have been informed by DDG (TX) that M/s Optel who is L-l has also obtained type approval. In order to ensure timely delivery, we may reserve a sizeable quantity say 70% to the four type approved firms out of which 30% may be given to M/s Optel and the balance may be equally distributed amongst the remaining three type approved firms. The balance 30% may be distributed equally amongst the remaining non-type approved firms subject to their getting type approval before 31st December, 1995. In case, they fail to obtain the same, their share may bedistributed amongst other type approved bidders equally. ACTION on the remaining packages may be taken, as proposed. THE TEC reconsidered the case of the petitioners along with others and it was held that the petitioners were technically as well as financially more suitable for placing the orders. THE members of the TEC consisting of Chairman, Telecom Authority, Member Finance, Member Production, Adviser Production and DDG (MM-I) cleared the report. They all held that the petitioners should beawarded the contract between 30 to 50 per cent of the. tendered quantity and rest of the four bidders should be distributed the balance of the tendered quantity in inverse ratio of their bids. It was noticed that this will save the Central Government a sum of Rs. 13. 3 crores. The TEC report dated 17th November, 1996 reads as under: "1. 0 TEC comprising of following members was constituted to evaluate the abovetender. 1) Shri S. KJain, DDG (TX), TCHQ. . . . . . . . . . Chairman 2) Shri B. B. Singh, Director (FA-III ). . . . . . Member 3) Shri Saviturprakash, Director (MMT ). . . Member 1. 1 TEC Report had been. submitted, however, vide U. O. No. 26-10/95- MMC dated 24. 11. 1995, the TEC has been again asked to re-examine Package-I and Package-III as some of the bidders have received type approval who had been found technically non-responsive in the TEC Report submitted earlier. 2. 0 On re-examination the names of the bidders who have got type approval have also been considered as technically responsive even though the type approval was received post tender. 2. 1 Following is the TEC report on re-examination for Package I and III. 3. 0 140 MB/s DTA WITHOUT JITTER PACKAGE I Subsequent review vide U. O. No. 26-10/95-MMC dated 24. 11. 95 3. 1 The total requirement is for 1137 Nos. 3. 2. 1 Following is the TEC report on re-examination for Package I and III. 3. 0 140 MB/s DTA WITHOUT JITTER PACKAGE I Subsequent review vide U. O. No. 26-10/95-MMC dated 24. 11. 95 3. 1 The total requirement is for 1137 Nos. 3. 2 The following 23 bidders have quoted for this package. BIDDERS NAME 1. W and G 2. WS TELE 3. HCL LTD 4. MEAS and CONTROL 5. P. S. MEAS and CONTROL 6. ITI 7. VIKAS 8. SURANA 9. SINCLAIRE 10. S. M. CREATIVE 11. HP 12. HFCL 13. RV ASSOCIATE 14. HTL 15. ARM 16. ADVANCE COMMUNICATION