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

2021 Supreme(Guj) 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.
M/S SARASWATI CONSTRUCTION CO. THRU SHRI MAHESHBHAI B. VANIYA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPT THRU SECRETARY - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8093 of 2020
Decided On : 10-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR DA BAMBHANIA
For The Respondent: MR DEVANG VYAS, MR HR PRAJAPATI

Point of Law: Tender - Tender conditions are required to be read as provided in the tender document and if there are two views or construction possible than the view of the authority interpreting the tender document should be accepted.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14,19,21 and 226 - Bidding – Contract - Writ applicant is a partnership firm, carrying on business activity as Construction Co., having established and registered as Contractor and same is in operation with Government of Gujarat and with other specified various Government Authorities in the territory of India - Respondents authorities invited E-tenders for constructions of Border including Protection work, Precast RCC box type culverts, Modular Fencing and flood lighting along Indo-Pak B0rder in Bhuj Sector - Writ applicant submitted E-tender with all documents as per terms of Notice inviting E-tender - Writ applicant was asked to submit work completion certificate - Several E-mail communications were took place between respondents and writ applicant regarding requisite documents and certain clarifications - One Email communication was addressed by Executive Engineer of respondent authority to writ applicant informing about ineligibility of writ applicant for prequalification bid - Whether writ applicant has duly complied with eligibility criteria of bid document providing eligibility criteria.

Finding of the Court:

Court have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that writ applicant was unable to produce work completion certificate, which is a mandatory requirement and also agreement between Engineering Ltd. and Principal Agency, in-spite of the extension of time granted by State Government for production of such certificate and as requested by the concerned authority, writ applicant has not made a positive submission asserting that writ applicant was possessing required documents - In view of the aforesaid, court are not inclined to interfere with decision of the respondent no.5 and consequent decision of awarding contract in favor of the respondent - Further, the Union awarded contract in favor of respondent no.6 way back.

Result: Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

    “A. Quashing and setting aside the decision and communication dated 16/6/2020, issued by the respondent no.5, at Annexure – A to the petition, including, actions and further actions of the respondent authorities, which authorize and or permit the authorities to further process the remaining tender, and isssuance of work orders and entering into contract with the sole agency, without considering the tender of the Petitioner, as Pre-qualified, and acting on the said communication declaring ineligible and its operation, and further operation may pleased be declared illegal, null and void, and respondents be restrained from taking any further actions and orders pursuant to E-mailletter, passed and issued by the respondent No.5, by holding it to be illegal, arbitrary, in complete brech of provisions of law, and set procedure and in clear violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Be pleased to issue appropriate writ and or direction and or orders, directing the respondents to treat the Petitioner as Prequalified, and to entertain the tender bid and decide as if the petitioner is Pre-qualified, as an agency competent to bid and qualified for opening the tender.

B. Quashing and setting aside all the consequential actions and orders, based on declaration as incligible, including action of authority to process further the tenders and take steps relating to the EMD of the Petitioner.

BB. Quashing and setting aside the decision and communication dated 01.07.2020 at Annexure A & J dated 16.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 including actions and further actions pursuant to acceptance of render of Respondent no.6 under Annexure – J, vide communication dated 01.07.2020 and restoring the position prevent prior to 16.06.2020 and directing the respondent authorities to examine the tender bid of the petitioner for pre-bid qualification, in terms of tender clause, and decide in accordance with the set procedure for awarding the contract, by restoring the facts prior to 16.06.2020, as if no further steps have been taken and tender bid of Respondent no.6 and the petitioner are to be process de-novo by declaring that, the petitioner bid reqires to be consider and opened for pre-bid technical qualification, by issuing appropriate writ and/or orders, and directions;

BC. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents and their agents and servants, from acting upon the communication dated 16.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 Annexure- A & J, and further process pursuant to communication and order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure – J) without deciding and considering the tender of the petitioner;

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition be pleased to restrain by way of injunction, restraining the respondents their agents and servants from implementing and further executing the impugned letter dated 16/6/2020 and further be pleased to make an order restraining the respondents their agents and servant from further operating and deciding on the basis of sole remaining tender of agency, without deciding, and considering the tender of the petitioner.

D. to grant any other relief and or further relief/s which this Hon’ble Court finds it just and proper in the interest of justice.

E. to provide for the cost of the petition.

F. The annexure to the petition is the true copy of the original.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ application may be summarized as under:

    2.1 The writ applicant is a partnership firm, carrying on business activity as M/s. Saraswati Construction Co., having established and registered as ‘AA’-Class Contractor and the same is in operation with Government of Gujarat and with other specified various Government Authorities in the territory of India.

2.2 The respondents authorities invite

              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