2012 (3) Supreme 376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. — Appellants
versus
Municipal Council, Sendhwa & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4195 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16175 of 2011)
Decided on : 04-05-2012
Facts of the Case :
A. Project work involving design, construction and commissioning of a single integrated water supply at Sendhwa (Madhya Pradesh) was allotted herein in the instant case in favour of respondent.2.Aggrieved by the allotment of work in favour of respondent No.2, the appellant filed Writ Petition before High Court. The challenge to the eligibility of respondent No.2 and eventually to the allotment of the project work to the said respondent in the Writ Petition was confined to two distinct grounds, namely (1) that respondent No.2 had not filed the requisite certified balance-sheets for five years immediately preceding the issue of tender notice and (2) that respondent No.2 did not have the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply scheme of the required value.
B. High Court examined both the grounds urged in support of the writ petition and came to the conclusion that respondent 2 was eligible to offer a bid in as much as it had substantially complied with the requirement of filing the certified copies of audited balance-sheets for the previous period of five years immediately preceding the issue of tender notice and that it had the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply project of the requisite value.
C. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The High Court while examining the question of eligibility of respondent No.2 by reference to the execution of the single integrated water supply scheme, recorded a finding that the nature of the work executed by respondent No.2 for Upleta satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. That finding, was in no way irrational or absurd. The certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 sufficiently demonstrated that respondent No.2 had designed, and executed an integrated water supply scheme for Upleta which included raw water transmission from intake wells and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying of pipelines, construction of E.S.R.s, Sumps, Pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery. There was no reason to interfere with the view taken by High Court of the allotment of work made in favour of respondent No.2.Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore whereby Writ Petition No.3427 of 2011 filed by the appellant was dismissed and the allotment of the project work involving design, construction and commissioning of a single integrated water supply at Sendhwa (Madhya Pradesh) in favour of M/s P.C. Snehal Construction Company-respondent No.2 upheld.
3. In terms of notice inviting tenders (NIT for short) Municipal Council Sendhwa, in the State of M.P., invited tenders from eligible contractors for the construction of an Integrated Water Supply Scheme at an estimated cost of nearly rupees twenty crores. Clause (1) of the said NIT as amended by addendum dated 23rd March, 2011, stipulated the following essential conditions of eligibility for the intending bidders:
“1. Registered Contractors have to produce valid Registration certificate in the category of S-V or equivalent in any State/Central Government Department or Government undertaking.
(a) Registered Contractors/Firms of Repute/Joint Venture firms have to produce certificate for executing single work of integrated water supply scheme comprising of intake well, raw/clear water pumping main, pumps, OHTS, Distribution system completed and running successfully at present, having value equal to 60% of the cost of the proposed works in last 5 years. This certificate should clearly mention amount of contract, completion period as per Tender and actual completion period. (In case of WPI adjustment for cost of works the same may be furnished along with a certificate of Chartered Accountant). The certificate shall be issued from the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent.
(b) Certified copy of audited balance sheet of last 5 years showing annual turnover equal to estimated cost of the work and average net worth equal to 40% of the cost of works.”
4. In response to the above NIT several applications were received by respondent No.1 for purchase of the tender forms. It is common ground that only six out of the said applicants eventually participated in the pre-bid meeting arranged by respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that out of the said six bidders only four were eventually found to be eligible. These four included the appellant-Tejas Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and respondent No.2-M/s P.C. Snehal Construction Company, Ahmedabad.
5. The tender conditions, inter alia, provided that the bid documents shall comprise three envelopes to be submitted by each of the bidders. Envelope A was to contain the earnest money deposited, Envelope B was to contain the technical bid including qualification documents while Envelope C was to contain the price bid of the bidders. The process of evaluation of the bids started on 7th April, 2011 with the opening of envelopes in the above order. Opening of envelope A was uneventful as all the bidders had furnished the earnest money stipulated under the terms of NIT. The appellant’s case, however, is that when envelope B was opened a request was made to respondent No.1 to show the technical bid received from respondent No.2 which request was granted. The appellant’s further case is that upon perusal of the technical bid of respondent No.2, the appellant had raised an objection as to the eligibility of the said to participate in the bid process on the ground that it did not have the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply scheme of the requisite value. Respondent No.2 is said to have claimed eligibility to offer a bid on the basis of clubbing of different water supply scheme projects at Vyara and Songadh which was impermissible according to the appellant. The appellant also raised an objection to the effect that respondent No.2 had not submitted certified copies of audited balance-sheets for the last five years and that the net-worth certificate produced from a Chartered Accountant for the financial year 201
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492
Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 1
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publication Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 617
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 138
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.