SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, Y.G.Khobragade, JJ.
P.M.S. And S.T.C.Jv – Appellant
Versus
Western Coal Fields Ltd – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ankit Shrivastava, Advocate, Atul Pande, Advocate, S.S.Dewani, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the work experience criteria as per the tender form, particularly in the context of joint venture partners and the fulfillment of essential criteria of experience of work.

Headnote:

Tender Bid Disqualification - Work Experience Criteria - Clause 6 of the Tender Form - [47/2021-22] - The court discussed the essential criteria of work experience as per clause 6 of the tender form, the requirement for joint venture partners, and the legal implications of fulfilling the work experience criteria. The court highlighted the interpretation of the work experience criteria and its application in the present case, emphasizing the refusal to open the technical bid based on non-fulfillment of essential criteria of experience of work.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the disqualification of their tender bid for not fulfilling the criteria of experience as per the Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT). The respondent refused to open the technical bid of the petitioner based on non-fulfillment of essential criteria of experience of work.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the essential criteria of the tender due to the non-fulfillment of work experience as per clause 6 of the tender form. The refusal to open the technical bid was deemed not arbitrary, illegal, or bad in law.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the fulfillment of the work experience criteria as per the tender form, specifically clause 6(a)(vii) regarding joint venture partners and the interpretation of the essential criteria of experience of work.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the work experience criteria as per clause 6 of the tender form, emphasizing the requirement for joint venture partners and the fulfillment of essential criteria of experience of work.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has questioned communication dtd. 12/05/2022 issued by respondent No.1-W.C.L., thereby disqualifying the tender bid of the present petitioner for not fulfilling the criteria of experience as per Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT)

3. It is not in dispute that on 17/12/2021, respondent No.1-WCL published e-tender notice No.47/2021-22 for loading and transporting of coal from Ghonsa OCM of Wani North Area. As per the tender notice, on fulfilling of required criteria, the bidders had to submit their tender bids till 01/01/2022 up to 5:00 p.m. Thereafter, the said bids were to be opened on 03/01/2022.

4. As per the tender form, the successful bidders were to execute job as described in Part-A and Part-B as under : Part -A :

Job-1 : Transportation of coal, loaded by hired pay loader, from coal stock yard, Heap No.3 of Ghonsa OC Mines to CHP Feeder breaker of Ghonsa OCM and unloading the same at CHP/fidder breaker by hired tippers.

Job-2 : Transportation of crush coal from CHP/fidder breaker of Ghonsa OCM to Wani Railway siding by hired tippers, loaded under gravity via Ghonsa OCM way bridge (for vayment) and waybridge of Wani railway siding (for wayment) and unloading the same at Wani Railway Siding of Wani north area.

Part -B :

Job-3 : Loading of mix coal into tippers/truck from New Coal Stock Yard, Heep No.3 of Ghonsa OC Mine by hired pay loaders.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner firm submitted its tender form along with all required documents and on fulfilling of essential conditions. Thereafter the said bid was to be opened on 03/01/2022. Accordingly, the petitioner along with other 15 bidders submitted their bids. The period of opening of technical bid was extended up to 30/06/2022. The petitioner also sent email communication to respondent No.1 and prayed for extension of bid validity by email dtd. 28/04/2022. However, on 26/04/2022, respondent No.1 issued communication through email and informed the petitioner about rejection of his bid on the ground of non-fulfillment of terms and conditions. Thereafter, on 12/05/2022, the petitioner received communication by email that on scrutiny of technical bid of the petitioner, it found non-fulfillment of work experience criteria a per the NIT, though the petitioner met essential criteria in respect of work experience by executing work in joint venture. The petitioner contended about successfully execution of the work in Kolar Pipri Mines, WCL Wani, North Area in the year 2021 and as per clause 6 of the tender condition, the bidders were required to have minimum work experience estimated to the value of work of Rs.20, 90, 95, 598.25 in 38 months, which comes to Rs.55, 02, 515.00 per month, and Rs.6, 60, 30, 188.00 for 12 months. As per Step No.2, the bidder were required experience in annualizing value of work of Rs.3, 30, 15, 094.00 in any financial year within last seven years of the last date of submission of bid and though the petitioner submitted the relevant documents about fulfillment of essential criteria of experience of work under joint venture agreement. However, respondent No.1 illegally and arbitrarily refused to open technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not having sufficient essential experience of work. Therefore, action on the part of respondent No.1 for refusing to open technical bid of the petitioner is illegal, bad in law. It is, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the same.

6. .Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, successful bidders were required to undertake the work pertaining to 50% of the annualized estimated value of the tender for a period of one year and 50% of the estimated value of the work during one year. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top