Cont.Cas(C) No. 557/2009 Page 1 of 4 23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2009 + CONT.CAS(C) 557/2009 NEX TENDERS (INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner -Versus- DG. OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSALS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner : Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Advocate with Ms. Sarifa Chowdhury, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Ms.Vibha Dhawan, Advocates. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (oral) 1. This contempt petition pertains to the judgment/order dated 02.04.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 6574/2007 and CM Nos. 12416/2007, 5651/2008 and 8457/2008. Inter alia, four directions were given by the Division Bench in the said judgment/order dated 02.04.2009. They are as follows:- 1. “We restrain respondents 1 to 3 from jointly marketing with respondent no. 4, the E- Cont.Cas(C) No. 557/2009 Page 2 of 4 procurement solution to other government/semi- government bodies and agencies in terms of the amended contract dated 22.5.2007.” 2. “We direct the respondent authorities to immediately undertake a fresh tender process for appointing an Application Service Provider for undertaking E-procurement activities by DGS&D on clearly stated terms and conditions and specifications, and by issuing a notice inviting tender which should be duly published.” 3. “The fresh tender process should be completed within a period of four months from today and the contract should be awarded to the newly appointed ASP within this period.” 4. “We further direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to adhere to the General Financial Rules in the matter of award of a fresh contract for E-tendering solutions.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all these directions have been violated by the respondent. Insofar as the first direction is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent has not undertaken any joint marketing with respondent no. 4 or any other party in respect of the E-procurement solution for which expression of interest is invited. As such, this direction is not violated. 3. Insofar as the second direction is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the fresh tender process has already been undertaken and the terms have been clearly stated and the conditions and specifications have been spelt out. The notice inviting the tenders was also duly published on 10.05.2009 in all the editions of “Times of India” Cont.Cas(C) No. 557/2009 Page 3 of 4 throughout the country. It was also published in the website of DGS&D on 12.05.2009. 4. With regard to the third direction, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the period of four months for completing the tender process has not yet run out and it is their endeavour that the same shall be completed within the stipulated period of four months. However, the learned counsel for the respondent also mentioned that while the process would be completed within four months, no final order can be placed by them in view of the Supreme Court direction in SLP(C) No. 10732/2009 passed on 11.05.2009. That Special Leave Petition was preferred by M/s C-1, India (P) Ltd. vs. M/s Nex Tender (P) Ltd. & Ors. 5. As regards the fourth direction, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents shall adhere to the General Financial Rules in the matter of award of the fresh contract for E-tendering solutions. They have assured this court that the General Financial Rules would be followed in letter and spirit. Though various arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to this aspect of the matter but, having considered the same, we are of the view that we need not make any observations at this stage in view of the fact that there is already a writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 9342/2009] filed by the petitioner herein which is pending disposal. Cont.Cas(C) No. 557/2009 Page 4 of 4 6. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that a case for contempt is not made out and, therefore, we dismiss this contempt petition. It is made clear that the dismissal of this contempt petition will have no bearing on the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 9342/2009 which is to be heard separately. BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 14, 2009 kks