THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25326 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a tender notice, dated 14.07.2009, inviting tenders for supply of X-ray Machine, Arterial Blood Gas Analyzer and C.R. System, with Digiliser. The specifications for the same were mentioned in the tender notice. The petitioner, the 2nd respondent and certain others submitted their tenders. In the evaluation of the tenders, the petitioner emerged as L-1 and the 2nd respondent as L-2 for supply of all the equipments. . Thereafter, negotiations were held. Ultimately, the 1st respondent awarded the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the tender of the 2nd respondent was accepted, on account of the fact that it offered a longer period of guarantee and to supply the equipment with laser technology. It is further mentioned that the 2nd respondent agreed to receive the price in instalments. The 2nd respondent also filed counter-affidavit, on the same lines. Heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The tender document is comprehensive. It gave detailed specifications of the product to be supplied. The tender process is in two stages, namely, technical bid and price bid. If only the equipment that is sought to be supplied by a tenderer accords with the specifications, its price bid would be opened. The fact that the price bids of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were opened, discloses that the products offered to be supplied by them accorded with the specifications. At the stage of price bid, what becomes material is, only the relative offers made by the tenderers in the fray. It is not in dispute that the petitioner emerged as L-1. Despite that, it is open to the 1st respondent to undertake negotiations, in an attempt to purchase the product at as lower a price, as possible, without compromising with the quality. The petitioner could have been eliminated from the process, if only the 2nd respondent offered to supply the product at a lesser price, than what is quoted by the petitioner. That, however, is not the case. The grounds pleaded by the 1st respondent are that the 2nd respondent offered to supply the product with laser technology and offered a longer period of guarantee. None of these are relevant. Once the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have passed through the stage of technical bid, the 1st respondent was to be guided by price structure alone. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in placing the order on the 2nd respondent for supply of the equipment is set aside. The 1st respondent shall undertake negotiations strictly as regards the price of the equipment with the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and other eligible tenderers, if any. This process shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26.04.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ