Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 459
High Court Of Calcutta
B.Bhattacharya & Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, JJ.
Nadia District Central Engineers Co-Operative Society Ltd. - Appellants
Vs
Biplab Dey, Chief Engineer-Ii Irrigation And Waterway Directorate - Respondents
M.A.T. 2639 of 2007 C.P.A.N. 1338 of 2007
Decided on: Apr 30, 2008
Amal Baran Chatterjee, Amalesh Roy, Diptanil Chakraborty, Prafulla Ghosh, Swarup Paul,
A tenderer must meet the eligibility criteria, including the required credential amount, for each work item separately, and cannot rely on a single credential to obtain work orders for multiple items with a combined value exceeding the credential amount.
Headnote:
TENDER - Eligibility Criteria - Work Order - Credential - Single Credential for Multiple Items - Petitioner's Credential Insufficient to Cover 50% of Total Value of Work - Work Order Granted for Only One Item - No Violation of Court Order
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the lowest bidder for four work items, challenged the respondents' decision to grant a work order for only one item due to insufficient credentials. The petitioner argued that a single credential should suffice for multiple items if it covers 50% of the value of each item individually.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents acted in accordance with the tender conditions, which required a credential of 50% of the work value for each item. The petitioner's credential was sufficient for only one item, and there was no rule allowing separate credentials for each item.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could obtain work orders for multiple items with a single credential that covered 50% of the value of each item individually, even if the aggregate value of all items exceeded the credential amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's interpretation of the tender conditions was incorrect. To obtain work orders for multiple items, the petitioner was required to furnish a credential covering 50% of the total value of all items.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of its earlier order and awarding costs to the respondents.
1. PURSUANT to our earlier order dated 7th April, 2008, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are personally present in Court. On last occasion, we directed those two respondents to file affidavit explaining the reason why the petitioner was not given the work-order in respect of serial nos. 3, 4 and 8, although, it was the lowest tenderer. Pursuant to such direction, an affidavit has been affirmed before this court. The respondents are also present with other documents in support of their explanation.
2. IT is pointed out to us that according to the terms of the tender, for item nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8, the selected tenderer must produce credential in respect of 50 percent of the value of the work which is Rs. 83,93,900/- for each of the aforesaid items. It appears from the declaration given by the petitioner that it had shown a sum of Rs. 76,71,542/- as the payment made during the concerned year which is treated as the credentials of the tenderer. Mr Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that having regard to the aforesaid sum declared by the petitioner, the work-order in respect of serial no. 1 was given to it as it had sufficient credentials being more than 50 percent of the value of the work. He, however, submits that although it was also the lowest bidder of the item being the serial no. 3, the work-order could not be given to it because after deduction of rs. 42,000/- and odd, being the 50 percent of the value of the work of the serial no. 1 from the credentials of the petitioner, further sufficient credential was not held by the petitioner to cover 50 percent of the value of the work in respect of the serial no. 3. In other words, Mr Chatterjee contends that in order to get all the four work-orders in respect of those items as a lowest bidder, it was the duty of the petitioner to produce the credential of Rs. 1,67,00,000/- being the 50 percent of the total value of the work covering the four items whereas it had the credentials of only Rs. 76,71,542/- and odd, as indicated earlier. Mr Chatterjee, therefore, submits that his clients did not commit any illegality in issuing work-order only in respect of the item being serial no. 1.
3. MR Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that there is no such rule that the contractor must give separate and additional credential for each items of the work. According to him, by giving a single credential, one can get work-order in respect of several items if the said credential is sufficient to cover 50 percent of the value of the work of those items individually and the aggregate value of all those items is not the decisive factor.
4. IN order to appreciate the point involved herein, it will be appropriate to refer to the following special condition for the eligibility of the tenderer:-
"all the tenderers should furnish attested photo copies of work ? Completion certificate supported with payment certificate of single similar nature of revetment of type - protection work or of its supply work particularly in the river Ganges/padma executed during last five years with minimum credential of 50% (of the amt. put to Tr.) of the work applied for along with P.T. and S.T. certificates and deeds, if any, with the application."
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer, Nadia irrigation Division issued the completion certificate that the petitioner society executed the work of protection to the eroding right bank of river Padma satisfactorily and the final gross bill of the said work stood at Rs. 76,71,542/- for the relevant year which is called "credential" in common parlance among the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials, we find substance in the contention of Mr Chatterjee that this Court in the original order having directed the respondents to consider the "credential" of the petitioner alone and not its subordinate
