The authority that issues a tender is best positioned to interpret its conditions, and courts should only intervene in cases of clear arbitrariness or irrationality.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had floated a tender which is titled as ‘Katipati (Storage) Barrage, Taluka District Akola Construction of Earthwork and Gated Barrage Works’. The estimated cost of the said work Rs.305,55,62,116/- (Rupees Three Hundred Five Crores Fifty Five Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred and Sixteen Only) and the total period within which the construction was to be completed was 36 calendar months including monsoon session. The tender conditions postulates the general experience to be considered and the condition to that effect reads thus:

“(C) General Experience:

(1) General Experience (For Civil Work Portion) The tenderer shall meet the following minimum criteria:

For Work executed in any one financial year during last Five years (year may be different for different items for different works.) the minimum quantities of the following major items of work shall be as indicated below:

(i) The works must be successfully completed by the applicants as prime contractor or any one member of joint venture has completed the above work together.

(ii) For above, in case the project has been executed by a joint venture, wightage towards experience of the project would be given to each partner in proportion to their participation in the joint venture.

(iii) For these, a certificate from employer shall be submitted along with application incorporating clearly the name of the work, contract value, billing amount, date of commencement of works satisfactory performance of the Contractor and any other relevant information.

Note: Work done certificate of Govt. Organization/Semi govt. organization/Govt. Undertaking/P.S.U.s only will be considered. Quantity certificate/work done certificate should not be below the rank of Executive Engineer.”

3. The petitioner which is a Joint Venture, submitted its bid and considering its general experience, the petitioner was held to be disqualified resulting in to the present petition. The relief claimed in the petition is to set aside the impugned communication dated September 28, 2024 whereby the respondents have disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction to consider the work certificate dated April 14, 2022 and based on the same, re-evaluate the claim of the petitioner thereby declaring it to be qualified.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are, the disqualification of the technical bid is with the label that “Criteria for similar kind of work quantity i.e. manufacturing, fabrication, commissioning, Erection and testing of barrage gate is not satisfied. Recommended for disqualification.”

5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if the tender conditions are considered, Item No. 6 of Clause-1 of Paragraph-C of the ‘General Experience’ contemplates the satisfaction of criteria of carrying out work of Manufacturing Fabrication, Erection, Commissioning & Testing of Barrage Gate and Other ancillary works to the extent of 795 Metric Tonnes. According to her, the said information is required to be submitted in appropriate format i.e. Form No. 3(A) thereby submitting work-wise details of work completed by the Contractor. While submitting the year-wise performance of major item executed by the petitioner, it was specifically brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner has completed structural steel for gate fabrication work to the tune of 1256.35 Metric