Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 448 (JK)

Bhardwaj Agencies v. State Of J&K

2014-11-11

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2014
1. Principal Government Medical College and Associated Hospitals Jammu, respondent No. 3 herein, in his capacity as Chairperson, Purchase Committee, issued E-Tender Notice No.07 of 2013 inviting on line bids from the original manufacturers/their dealers registered with Health and Medical Department of J&K State for supply of Anaesthesia equipments, namely, inter alia, High End Ventilator (for short `the Ventilator') and Multi Parameter Monitor Portable (for short the `Monitor'). 2. The bids were to be submitted in two parts. The first part was to consist of the technical proposal and the second part was to be the financial proposal. Petitioner, it appears, claiming to be the authorized dealer of Hamilton and Allengers Medical System, responded to the E-tender and submitted separate bids for supply of the Ventilators and the Monitors. It is not disputed that the petitioner among others qualified the technical bids, which, it appears, were opened after technical demonstration of the equipments to be supplied, and thereafter the financial bids of qualified bidders were opened. The financial bids in respect of the Ventilators were opened on 19.12.2013 and those in respect of the Monitors were opened on 18.02.2014. Respondents (Purchase Committee), however, rejected claim of the petitioner as regards the supply of the Ventilators and ultimately issued order No. GMC/PC/1163-64 dated 24.03.2014 in this behalf and vide E-Tender Notice No. 14 of 2014 have called for the fresh bids for supply of Monitors among other items/equipments. 3. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his claim as regards the supply of Ventilators vide order dated 24.3.2014 and issue of E-Tender Notice No. 14 of 2014 to the extent of Monitors, petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the said order and the Tender Notice to the extent of supply of Monitors and issue of a direction to the respondents to issue rate contracts in respect of the said two items in favour of the petitioner pursuant to and in furtherance of E-Tender Notice of 2013. 4. Case set up by the petitioner through averments in the writ petition and the annexures thereto is that the rates quoted by the petitioner for both the items were lowest among all the bidders. Besides, the petitioner offered Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) free of charges for a period of five years after the end of the initial warranty period of five years. Besides, the petitioner offered Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) free of charges for a period of five years after the end of the initial warranty period of five years. Respondents, however, did not issue rate contract for supply of the Ventilators, the bids in respect whereof were opened on 19.12.2013 and deferred opening of the financial bids in respect of Monitors, which were later opened on 18.02.2014. Petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition No. 229/2014 for issue of rate contracts for supply of the Ventilators in its favour. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.04.2014 by issue of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner on the basis of being the lowest bidder. It is alleged that the respondents rejected the petitioner's case vide the impugned order No. GMC/PC/1163-64 dated 24.03.2014 providing arbitrarily that the petitioner has quoted `Zero' for CMC for five years after the expiry of the warranty period of initial five years and that the rate `Zero' so quoted does not mean CMC free of charges. Case set up by the petitioner further is that for the same reason rate contract in respect of the Monitors has also not been issued and with a view to deprive the petitioner of the rate contract, respondents have issued a fresh tender notice vide E- Tender Notice No. 14 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that it quoted the rate of Rs. 13,65,000/ for a Ventilator comprising of Rs. 13 lacs as cost and Rs. 65 thousands as VAT. Similarly, it quoted the rate of Rs. 1,73,250/ for a Monitor comprising of Rs. 1,65,000/ as cost and Rs. 8,250 as VAT. Besides, the petitioner offered five years' free of cost CMC by quoting the rate `Zero' for both the items, that is, without charging any money for CMC for a period of five years after the warranty period of initial five years is over. 6. It is contended by the petitioner further that being the lowest bidder rate contracts should have been issued in its favour and it is alleged that respondents arbitrarily and with ulterior motive did not issue rate contracts in favour of the petitioner and issued fresh tender notice in respect of the Monitors so that their blue eyed persons are benefited. 7. 7. Respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing reply/ objections on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 8. While not disputing that rate quoted by the petitioner in respect of both the items in response to E-Tender Notice No. 07/2013 were lowest, the plea taken by the respondents is that the Purchase Committee never declared the petitioner as lowest bidder for the reason that the financial bids of the petitioner were not found in consonance with BOQ (Bill of Quantities) provided for the purpose. It is contended that petitioner did not quote the rates for the CMC period thus making its bid as infructuous and the same were accordingly rejected. 8. It is stated further in their reply by the respondents that the contention of the petitioner that `Zero' means free of cost could have been made clear in its technical bid that instead of required five years' warranty they were offering the equipments with 10 years warranty or they are not going to charge anything during CMC period for next five years. It is stated further that the Purchase Committee has observed that "instead of quoting the rates for equipments inclusive of all components like optional accessories and CMC components the firm should have offered the rates in accordance with BOQ so that on one hand the Government Exchequer could have been saved initially at the time of placement of supply order and more life saving equipments could have been purchased out of the budget allocated for the current financial year and payment of on account of" CMC would have been made year wise without putting any extra burden on the current allocated budget. It is stated contextually that the impugned consideration/rejection order dated 24.3.2014 was passed after according consideration to petitioner's claim in compliance to the judgment dated 20.2.2014 passed by this Court in OWP No. 229/2014 filed by the petitioner. 9. It is further contended by the respondents that E-NIT No. 7 had been issued for the year, 2013-14. However, some of the items including the two aforementioned equipments could not be purchased during that year and the impugned E-NIT No. 14 of 2014 has been floated because of the funds having been received for procurement during the year, 2014- 15 and the petitioners is at liberty to participate in the said tendering process. 10. However, some of the items including the two aforementioned equipments could not be purchased during that year and the impugned E-NIT No. 14 of 2014 has been floated because of the funds having been received for procurement during the year, 2014- 15 and the petitioners is at liberty to participate in the said tendering process. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the record. 11. It is seen and may be stated without any doubt that the respondents have not denied that rates quoted by the petitioner for both the items were the lowest. But even then the controversy has arisen because of overall rejection by the purchase committee of the bids submitted by the petitioner. 12. Before taking up the controversy for its resolution, it needs to be pointed out, as an admitted ground of both the sides, that BOQ (Bill of Quantity) as a matter of fact is the format comprised in the tender documents providing the template, in which a bidder was required to quote the rates. Condition No. 10 of the `TERMS & CONDITIONS OF TENDER' provides that rates should be quoted in accordance with the BOQ only on line and condition No. 9 provides that `tender where prices are quoted in any other way shall be treated non-responsive and rejected'. Instructions to the bidders regarding E-tendering process provided in instruction No. 13 that the bidders shall not make any change in BOQ contents or its name. The BOQ format exhibits endorsement, which reads, "this BOQ template must not be modified/replaced by the bidder and the same should be uploaded after filing the relevant column else the bidder is liable to be rejected for this tender. Bidders are allowed to enter the bidder name and values only". Condition Nos. 10 and 27 of the Terms and Conditions of Tender are important and I, therefore, cull them out as: "10. The rates quoted should be inclusive of all taxes, duties, other charges like packing, forwarding etc. including entry tax, if any. No separate Tax/Levies will be allowed. The rates should be quoted in accordance with the BOQ only online. 27. Each item/equipment quoted shall be under warranty of five years from the date of installation and its successful commissioning at required site. The details of Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (including spares) after the warranty period shall also be mentioned. No separate Tax/Levies will be allowed. The rates should be quoted in accordance with the BOQ only online. 27. Each item/equipment quoted shall be under warranty of five years from the date of installation and its successful commissioning at required site. The details of Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (including spares) after the warranty period shall also be mentioned. Any condition mentioned against each item in the list of items in tender document shall also be the part of the terms & conditions." 13. Few important aspects would require a reference to in the record made available to the Court. On perusal of record produced on behalf of respondents it has been found, which was not disputed at the Bar, that the tender documents provided separate BOQ for each item tendered and a bidder was required only to enter his name and the basic price and taxes etc. for each item. It is seen inter alia that column No. 2 of vertical columns of the BOQ relates to `item description'. Column No. 2 is followed by column No. 7 relating to `basic price of the item'. Column No. 21 relates `CMC after expiry of warranty period alongwith service tax.' Column Nos. 2 and 21 of both the BOQs are relevant which are culled as below: Re-Ventilator High End 1 Item Description 2 CMC After expiry of Warranty period along with service Tax In INR 21 1. Supply of Ventilator High End 2. Optional Accessory 1 3. Optional Accessory 2 4. Optional Accessory 3 5. Optional Accessory 4 6. CMC for 6th year 0.00 7. CMC for 7th year 0.00 8. CMC for 8th year 0.00 9. CMC for 9th year 0.00 10. CMC for 10th year 0.00 Re-Multi-Parameter Monitor Portable. 1 Item Description 2 CMC After expiry of Warranty period along with service Tax In INR 21 1. Supply of Multi-parameter Monitor Portable. 2. Optional Accessory 1 3. Optional Accessory 2 4. Optional Accessory 3 5. Optional Accessory 4 6. CMC for 6th year 0.00 7. CMC for 7th year 0.00 8. CMC for 8th year 0.00 9. CMC for 9th year 0.00 10. CMC for 10th year 0.00 14. What appears as indisputable on perusal of the tender documents and the BOQ format is that a bidder had to quote, firstly, the basic price of the item and the basic price of four optional accessories. CMC for 7th year 0.00 8. CMC for 8th year 0.00 9. CMC for 9th year 0.00 10. CMC for 10th year 0.00 14. What appears as indisputable on perusal of the tender documents and the BOQ format is that a bidder had to quote, firstly, the basic price of the item and the basic price of four optional accessories. Besides, the bidder had to quote the taxes, like custom duty, customs clearance VAT etc. What, however, is important in relation to the controversy involved in this writ petition is that every item was to be covered under warranty for the period of first five years after its installation at the site and for next five years the bidder supplier had to execute year-wise CMC and was, therefore, required to quote year wise CMC value for 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th years. It is important to note and point out that in the BOQ format the columns, where value under various categories was to be entered, have been indicated as `0.00'. 15. The BOQ formats filled up the petitioner in respect of abovementioned two items, copies whereof have been produced as annexures `A & B' and also are lying on the record produced on behalf of the respondents, on their plain look would show that no value has been entered by the petitioner in their column No.21 and indications `0.00' were obviously left as they are. Here lies the catch of the controversy arising in this case. Respondents' contention is that petitioner has failed to quote value of the CMC to be executed for 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th year after expiry of warranty period of initial five years and therefore, the bids were not submitted in accordance with BOQ and were rejected. Petitioner plea on the other hand is that he has quoted `zero' for CMC, that is, free of charges CMC. 16. As stated above, bids in regard to the Ventilator were opened on 19.12.2013. Respondents have produced the copy of minutes of meeting held on 19.12.2013. As per the minutes of the meeting, the meeting, besides Members of the Purchase Committee was attended by Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesia, GMC Jammu and Professor and Head, Department of Paediatrics, GMC Jammu, as co-opted Members. Financial bids of five bidders including petitioner M/s Bhardwaj Agencies were opened. As per the minutes of the meeting, the meeting, besides Members of the Purchase Committee was attended by Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesia, GMC Jammu and Professor and Head, Department of Paediatrics, GMC Jammu, as co-opted Members. Financial bids of five bidders including petitioner M/s Bhardwaj Agencies were opened. As regards the bid submitted by the petitioner, the Purchase Committee, however, observed; "it was found that M/s Bhardwaj Agencies, Jammu have not submitted their rates in accordance with the BOQ (Financial Bid) provided for the purpose. They have quoted rates only for the equipment and the CMC Part was missing in the Financial Bid, besides rates were not offered for ECO2 which was shown optional in the technical Bid. It was also noticed that the Annexure "B" supplied by the tenderer undertakes the warranty for five years only and the annexure "A" supplied by the original manufacturer of the equipment undertakes the responsibility of the execution of Comprehensive Maintenance Contract on the quoted rates of their dealer whereas the dealer has not quoted any rates for the CMC period thus making their bid as infructuous and thus rejected". 17. Bids as regards the Monitor were not opened on 19.12.2013 for the reason, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, that the experts in the Purchase Committee had desired to get the physical demonstration of the equipment quoted by the petitioner, Bhardwaj Agencies. Bids as regards the Monitors were opened on 18.02.2014 and the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected mainly for same reason for which its bid for Ventilator was earlier rejected but this time Committee decided to retender the item to avoid any confusion. 18. Petitioner had earlier assailed the rejection of his bid as regards the Ventilator in OWP No. 229/2014, which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court at its threshold on 20.02.2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of being the lowest bidder. In compliance to the said direction issued by this Court, respondents (Purchase Committee) issued a detailed order No. GMS/PC/1163-64 dated 24.03.2014 (supra), which is impugned in the writ petition on hand. 19. In compliance to the said direction issued by this Court, respondents (Purchase Committee) issued a detailed order No. GMS/PC/1163-64 dated 24.03.2014 (supra), which is impugned in the writ petition on hand. 19. The impugned order dated 24.03.2014 on perusal would show that earlier the petitioner after one month of the rejection of his bid for supply of the Ventilators had submitted a representation to the respondents claiming that it had quoted Rs. "0" under the column of CMC and claiming further that it was not going to charge anything during CMC period. On that representation the Committee discussed the matter on 21.01.2014 and resolved that `instead of claiming now i.e. after opening of Financial Bids, the firm should have clarified in their technical bid that they are not going to charge anything during the Comprehensive Maintenance Period, which they have not mentioned anywhere'. It was further resolved that "whereas, the firm should have offered the rates in accordance with BOQ provided by the Department so that on one hand the Government Exchequer could have been saved initially at the time of placement of supply orders and more life saving equipment could have been purchased out of budget allocated for current financial year and payment on account of Comprehensive Maintenance charges would have been made year wise without putting any extra burden on the current allocated budget, i.e. 10 years in advance. Whereas, it was decided by the committee not to consider the representation at this stage as the same is devoid of any merit. The said agency has not mentioned anything about free CMC in the technical bid, rather has offered the equipment with five years warranty only. Even otherwise the financial bid of the said firm stands rejected by the committee on 19.12.2013 i.e. when the financial bids were opened by the committee and it was found that M/s Bhardwaj Agencies, Jammu have not submitted their rates in accordance with the BOQ (Financial Bid) provided for the purpose." 20. The impugned order dated 24.03.2014 would show further that after rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner rate contract for supply of the Monitors was issued in favour of M/s Caulson but the matter was again discussed in the meeting of Purchase Committee held on 07.02.2014 and it was decided to float fresh NIT to `avoid any objections and to ensure that no State Exchequer is lost'. The impugned order indicates that supply of Ventilators was re-tendered vide E- tender Notice No. 08 of 2014 but the same has been stayed by this Court in OWP No. 267/2014, titled M/s. Caulson & Co. v. State and ors. 21. The impugned order would show further that after issue of direction by this Court in OWP No. 229/2014 on 20.02.2014 the matter was again taken up by the Purchase Committee in a meeting held on 11.03.2014 and the Committee was of the view that the petitioner had concealed the fact from this Court. 22. The impugned order would show further that the Committee had ultimately taken the view that `although M/s. Bhardwaj Agencies, Jammu qualified technically but they failed in Financial Bid' and `decided unanimously that petitioner, M/s Bhardwaj Agencies, Jammu cannot be treated as lowest bidder on the basis of incomplete Financial Bid submitted by tenderer' and that the petitioner have submitted their Financial Bid in violation of Clause 10 and 27 of NIT' and rejected his bid'. 23. What clearly emerges from the record referred to above is that the Purchase Committee had taken a consistent and determined view that the petitioner has failed to quote the CMC value for the five years period commencing after the end of the warranty period of initial five years and had therefore rejected the bids submitted by the petitioner. The Purchase Committee also rejected petitioner's stand taken for the first time by the petitioner vide its representation on 18.01.2014 that it had quoted Rs. `0' as CMC value as they were going to provide free of charges CMC for the said period of five years. 24. The plea taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is the same as it was taken before the purchase committee. Mr. Gandotra, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to demonstrate that petitioner will not charge anything for entering into CMC for the said period of five years meaning thereby that the petitioner intends to provide CMC for five years after the end of initial warranty period free of charges. Mr. Gandotra would say that it was not possible to reflect petitioner's intention of providing free of charges CMC in the BOQ in any manner other that quoting `0'. Mr. Gandotra would say that it was not possible to reflect petitioner's intention of providing free of charges CMC in the BOQ in any manner other that quoting `0'. The intention of the petitioner was clearly stated in the representation but the respondents arbitrarily and with ulterior motive to give benefit to their blue eyed rejected the bids, instead of accepting the explanation. 25. Per contra, Mrs. Neeru Goswami, learned Dy. AG vehemently submitted and took the Court through record to make out that free of charges CMC neither was contemplated nor was intended by the petitioner and the petitioner as a matter of fact had failed to fill up column No. 21 of the BOQ. Ms. Goswami in particular referred to annexures A and B submitted by the petitioner alongwith his technical offer to make out that the petitioner as well as his manufacturer had offered warranty period of five years and had contemplated a five years CMC after the warranty period but the petitioner omitted to quote the rates for the CMC. 26. The short question thus arising for determination is, whether the Purchase Committee was correct in taking the view that the petitioner had not quoted the CMC value and therefore, had not submitted its bids in accordance with the BOQ? Ancillary question would be, whether the decision of the Purchase Committee in rejecting the petitioner's bids was justified and legally correct or is the decision illegal being arbitrary and actuated with ulterior motive and calls for interference and review by this Court? 27. Scope and extent of judicial review permissible in administrative decisions of the State, in particular the conditions and procedure of allotment of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities, is by now well settled and no longer res integra. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, as (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Supreme Court after surveying the case law available by that time has laid down the following principles: "94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of Contract, Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the Contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of Contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 28. Recently the Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & ors., (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216, while recapitulating some of the decisions, including that in Tata Cellular, in the matter, have stated these principles as under: "23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non- arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) .............. (c) .................. (d) ................... and (e) .................." 29. More recently Supreme Court in M/s Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd. & ors. 2014 AIR SCW 1249, has referred with approval to an earlier judgment of the Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and ors. (c) .................. (d) ................... and (e) .................." 29. More recently Supreme Court in M/s Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd. & ors. 2014 AIR SCW 1249, has referred with approval to an earlier judgment of the Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and ors. (2007) 14 SCC 517 where the Supreme Court, while dealing with the exercise of power of judicial review in matters relating to tenders and award of contracts, has observed in para 22 of the reporting: "22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decisions is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes." 30. Legal position is thus clear too. Administrative decisions and actions of the State, in particular the decisions taken in relation to award of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities, generally are not amenable to the judicial review and greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State and its instrumentalities in this sphere. Nevertheless, judicial review of a decision in exercise of the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible if it is shown that the decision suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness or favouritism, or is actuated by bias or malice. 31. I may say in the outset that the Purchase Committee comprised of experts from Medical line and the Accounts line and ordinarily it will not be fair and reasonable to presume that they would have faulted in understanding a particular entry in the BOQ format. 31. I may say in the outset that the Purchase Committee comprised of experts from Medical line and the Accounts line and ordinarily it will not be fair and reasonable to presume that they would have faulted in understanding a particular entry in the BOQ format. Petitioner, therefore, has to make out a cogent case that what it claims was permissible and sufficiently and undoubtedly reflected in the BOQ. 32. When considered in backdrop of the totality of the manner in which the petitioner had taken part in the tendering process, I am not inclined to believe that it could be possible for the Purchase Committee to make out, much less, there was any material to believe, that the petitioner intended to provide free of charges CMC and had expressed its intention by reflecting `zero' charges in column 21 of the BOQ and it was not correct to say that he had left the said column unfilled. I have rather a reason to say that free of charges CMC was not permissible. It is important to note in this relation, as said hereinabove also, that the bids were to be submitted in two parts, that is, technical proposal and financial proposal and as per the tender notice and documents, as pointed out Ms. Goswami, learned Dy. AG, the technical proposal was required to be supported with an undertaking by the bidder in annexure-A and undertaking/letter of acceptance by the manufacturer in annexure-B. In annexure-A provided by the petitioner, the principal manufacturer, Allengers Medical Systems Ltd., of which the petitioner claims to be a dealer, had given an undertaking that, in case of any change of their local dealer, the manufacturer shall be fully responsible during the warranty period as well as for executing of CMC after the expiry of warranty period on the rates quoted by their dealer. I may, to highlight the point, reproduce the substance of annexure-A which reads: "Subject: E- Tender Notice No. 07 OF 2013, for providing ANAESTHESIA EUIPMENTS (i.e, Multi - Parameter Monitor Portable, Item No. 06, due on 30.08.2013. I may, to highlight the point, reproduce the substance of annexure-A which reads: "Subject: E- Tender Notice No. 07 OF 2013, for providing ANAESTHESIA EUIPMENTS (i.e, Multi - Parameter Monitor Portable, Item No. 06, due on 30.08.2013. I, Navjot Singh, National Sales Manager of Allengers Medical Systems Ltd., S.C.O. 212-213-214, Sector 34 A, Chandigarh- 160 002 ( U.T.) is authorized signatory of the firm, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- That in case of any change of our local dealer mentioned in Annexure "C", we will be fully responsible during the warranty period of the equipment as well as executing of Comprehensive Maintenance Contract after the expiry of the warranty period on the rates quoted by their dealer. (Emphasis added) That spares of the quoted model shall available atleast for a period of seven years on chargeable basis after the expiry of warranty period. That the model quoted by our dealer, on our authority, are complaint with the tendered specifications and deviations, if any, are mentioned in "Remarks" Column. That the product/ model number being quoted against the tender is currently undergoing production and have not been discontinued by us. For ALLENGERS MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD." 33. Likewise in annexure-B, the petitioner inter alia had agreed to `be responsible for warranty of equipment for five years, from the date of successful installation'. 34. A collective reading of annexure-A and B would admit of no doubt in making it clear that the petitioner in his capacity as the dealer and the supplier had agreed to be responsible for the warranty period of five years and the manufacturer had in addition agreed to be responsible for execution of CMC after expiry of warranty period on the rates quoted by the petitioner, in case of change in dealership. Idea of free of charges CMC neither is contemplated nor can be inferred from collective reading of these two documents. I would, thus, hold without any hesitation that to say that petitioner intended to provide free of charges CMC for five years after expiry of warranty period of initial five years and had quoted `0.00' as `zero' charges, that is, free of charges CMC, was just an afterthought on the part of petitioner and is not a reality. 35. I would, thus, hold without any hesitation that to say that petitioner intended to provide free of charges CMC for five years after expiry of warranty period of initial five years and had quoted `0.00' as `zero' charges, that is, free of charges CMC, was just an afterthought on the part of petitioner and is not a reality. 35. I would, thus, hold further that petitioner as a matter of fact had failed to fill up column 21 and thereby had not quoted the year wise value of five years CMC after expiry of initial warranty period. Respondents therefore, cannot be said to have acted with any malice or arbitrarily and their act in rejecting the bids submitted by the petitioner cannot be taken as unjustified. Given the importance of the equipments having regard to their function and use in a hospital, Purchase Committee cannot be expected to have purchased the equipments from a party, who had not offered CMC for the period, commencing after expiry of the warranty period. 36. For all that said and discussed above, I hold that the rejection of the bids of the petitioner does not call for any interference in exercise of the power of judicial review of this Court and in that, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. 37. Disposed of.