IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA, J.
(13.11.2020)
CWJC No.7755 of 2020
Dhanlaxmi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
Government Contract – Tender – Non-award of Work Contract – Authority who evaluated price bids, added capitalization of guaranteed losses of power transformers which are mentioned in techno commercial bid of petitioner and added the same to price bid offered by petitioner – Thereafter price offered by petitioner comes to L-3 and entered into agreement with respondent no.6 whose price bids was classified as L-1 – If price schedule does not generally give full description of supply to be made and work to be performed in each item, bidder shall be deemed to have read technical specification and other bidding documents to ascertain full scope of work included in each item – If petitioner fails to mention capitalization of loss on account of no load loss and load loss of transformers on a prescribed standard, price bid of petitioner is liable to be cancelled – Authority has rightly added capitalization of guaranteed losses of power transformer in price bid offered by petitioner and after adding capitalization of guaranteed losses of power transformer as offered by petitioner in technical and commercial bids, price bids offered by petitioner comes to L-3 and respondents have rightly rejected bids of petitioner – Capitalization losses of transformer are to be mentioned as the same directly relates with quality and technical make of transformer but petitioner instead of mentioning such loss on account of no load loss and load loss, petitioner in price bid mentioned loss as zero which is impossible – Order rejecting bid of petitioner affirmed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
(1994) 6 SCC 651 ; (1999) 1 SCC 492 – Referred.
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition seeks following reliefs:—
(i) In the nature of certiorari to quash Letter No.283, dated 28.08.2020, by which the respondents, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited has declared the petitioner to be L3 despite making a bid of the lowest amount and earlier being declared as L1 (Annexure-1).
(ii) In the nature of mandamus directing the respondent, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited to award the work as mentioned in NIT No.16/PR/SBPDCL/2020 to the petitioner.
(iii) During pendency of this application, stay the operation of Letter No.283, dated 28.08.2020 and NIT No.16/PR/SBPDCL/2020, issued by the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited.
(iv) For any other relief which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner by filing I.A. No.1 of 2020 seeks further reliefs:
(v) To set aside the Board Resolution dated 02.09.2020 made by the board of the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited by which the work of construction of four number 2X10 MVA, 33/11 KV GIS PSS with associated 33 KV & 11 KV lines and all associated works in PESU area of Patna District against tender being 16/PR/SBPDCL/2020 has been allotted to M/s Zeniya Electech Private Limited, Bhiwadi in joint venture with M/s MMJ Construction, Ghaziabad, respondent no.6.
(vi) To set aside the offer letter bearing No. SB/PLG/GIS PSS/03/2016, dated 07.09.2020, issued by the respondent, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited by which letter of award has been issued to M/s Zeniya Electech Private Limited, Bhiwadi in joint venture with M/s MMJ Construction, Ghaziabad.
(vii) For direction to set aside the contract entered into by the respondent, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited and M/s Zeniya Electech Private Limited, Bhiwadi in joint venture with
M/s MMJ Construction, Ghaziabad for execution of the subject work.
2. The brief facts sans unnecessary details but relevant for disposal of this case is that South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited issued a notice inviting tender being 16/PR/SBPDCL/2020 by which tender was sought from intending bidders for turnkey contract for construction of four number 2X10 MVA, 33/11 KV GIS PSS with associated 33 KV & 11 KV lines and all associated works in PESU area of Patna District (Annexure-2). The tender was to be held by two bid system, which was techno-commercial and financial. 20 persons including the petitioner and the respondent no.6 participated in the tender bid. 19 persons were found technically qualified and thereafter the price bid was opened. Estimated cost of the work was Rs.30,62,00,000/-. The opening of price bid on the basis of quoted amount with GST and loss is done and a list was prepared showing that the petitioner Dhanlaxmi Electrical Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai is L1 but the work was not allotted to the petitioner. When the petitioner enquired about completion of formalities to be followed after declaration of the petitioner as L1, the petitioner, as claimed, came to know that the authorities in order to favour some entity were trying to find some lacuna or irregularity in the bidding of the petitioner and efforts were made to disqualify the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The petitioner wrote a letter on 21st of August, 2020 that the petitioner learnt that South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited was trying to make an issue that the petitioner has not mentioned in the price bids the capitalized loss and, as such, the petitioner intentionally kept the financial bid low. The petitioner undertakes by writing letter that he would complete the entire work as per technical specification in the same rate, which was quoted in the bid (Annexure-4), but the respondent, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited by letter dated 28th of August, 2020 declared the petitioner as L3 and held that the petitioner would not be considered for award of work.
3. Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Senior Counsel for
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.