Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J.
Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Assam and Others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2337 of 2020
Decided On : 01-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Judicial Review — Contractual matters —Power of high court to issue certain writs – Tender — Qualification for bidder – Managing Director, ATDCL issued notice inviting bid (QCBS) (E-procurement) notice from reputed manufacturer/authorized supplier for design, construction, supply, testing and commissioning of cruise, Ferry vessels, Floating Steel Barge barge/Pontoon and FRP speedboats, Assam – Held, On perusal of the writ petition it is found that the petitioner No. 1 is M/s. Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., a limited company and lead partner in Joint Venture and it is stated in the writ petition that petitioner No. 1 authorised the petitioner No. 2, the executive officer to represent the company, petitioner No. 1. Court have perused the joint venture agreement of the petitioner No. 1 and the other constituent, Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. which is enclosed to the writ petition and therein under the heading “validity of said agreement” it is stipulated that the joint venture shall He automatically terminated in case the contract in terms of said tender was not awarded – Once the validity of said agreement stood terminated “automatically” as such the power of attorney authorizing the present petitioner No. 1 to act on behalf Shipyard and Slipways (P.) Ltd. had also lost its validity – In view of the same, the petitioner under its sole entity without the authority of the other constituent & Slipways Ltd. has no locus standi to file this writ petition moreso when the petitioner No. 1 sought to be declared as the selected bidder with all consequential reliefs and admittedly the petitioner No. 1 solely does not fall within the definition of “bidder” under clause 1(i)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Kalita learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. P.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Assam Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (‘ATDCL’) respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned State counsel for respondent No. 1.
2. The Managing Director, ATDCL issued notice inviting bid (QCBS) (E-procurement) notice dated 29.1.2020 from reputed manufacturer/authorized supplier for design, construction, supply, testing and commissioning of cruise, Ferry vessels, Floating Steel Barge barge/Pontoon and FRP speedboats at Majuli, Assam. The approximate value of the tender was Rs. 16,50,00,000. The last date of submission of e/bid was scheduled on 10.2.2020 upto 2 p.m. The date was extended by the respondents for submission of bid to 17.2.2020 up to 2 p.m.
3. The relevant portion of bid evaluation criteria in the notice inviting bid dated 29.1.2020 is extracted herein below :
Based on the NIB, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will follow the following procedure for opening of the BID:
STEP-I
After receiving the BID, on the same day Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open the Envelope and check the receipt of the two separate envelopes inside the same duly mentioned with envelop-II as mentioned in the Bid document. The Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open first the Cover I to check the EMD/Bid Security and cost of bid document in the absence or default of which the bid may get rejected.
STEP-II
The Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open the cover-II based on the cover-I as opened earlier on the same day, managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will check the documents submitting with cover II, technical bid and credential, overall and keep for scrutiny and evaluation by Managing Director, ATDC Ltd./Evaluation Committee. After technical evaluation on above, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will, decide the date of opening of financial Bid based on the evaluation Report. After opening of the financial Bid, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will evaluate the same to take the final decision on the same. The evaluation matrix attached with the Bid as guideline to the Bidders as follows:
EVALUATION MATRIX
| Sl. No. | Particulars | Max. Marks | Score | Remarks |
| 1. | Experience on similar work(s) during last 7 years with details supported by copy of work order and completion certificate | 15 |
|
|
| 2. (a) | Annual financial turnover during the last years. 2018-2019 - Rs ……………… 2017-2018 - Rs ……………… 2016-2017 - Rs ……………… | 15 |
|
|
| (b) | Evidence of access to line (s) of credit and availability of other financial resources facilities (10% of contract value), certified by bankers |
|
|
|
| (c) | Bank solvency certificate not more than 3 months old. |
|
|
|
| 3. | Key personnel available and proposed to be engaged for management and supervision of the project, their qualifications and experience with photocopy of certificate and consent letter of key personnel | 10 |
|
|
| 4. | Major equipment proposed to carry out the contract | 5 |
|
|
| 5. | Proposed methodology of execution and work programmers per scope of work) | 5 |
|
|
| 6. | Undertaking/declaration of Safety rule- regulations and safety appliances | 5 |
|
|
| 7. | Proof of availability of maintenance facility Bidder should have local ship building infrastructure with valid documents for last 3 years. | 5 |
|
|
| 8. | The bidder should have successfully been running inland offshore vessel based cruising/marine business for last 3 years | 10 |
|
|
| 9. | Presentation | 30 |
|
|
|
| Total marks | 100 |
|
|
Clause 7.1 of RFP reads as under: Information relating to evaluation of proposals and recommendations concerning contract award shall not be disclosed to consultants who submitted proposals or to oth....
The interpretation of tender criteria by the awarding authority is presumed reasonable unless proven arbitrary or in bad faith, validating their discretion in evaluations.
The court emphasized strict compliance with tender conditions, ruling that the Local Content Certificate must be submitted in the name of the Joint Venture, and deviations from prescribed formats are....
Point of law: Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a lega....
The court upheld the award of the tender to the opposite party no.5, finding that the bid was qualified and awarded based on the evaluation of the bid and compliance with the conditions provided in C....
The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent decision-making in tender evaluations, asserting judicial review is warranted when actions of administrative bodies exhibit arbitrariness b....
Bidders must comply strictly with tender requirements; misleading information and poor performance can result in disqualification. Judicial review in tender cases should maintain restraint, supportin....
The court upheld the validity of tender disqualification based on non-compliance with specified documentation requirements, affirming the decision-making integrity of the evaluation committee.
The court ruled that tender eligibility criteria must explicitly state disqualifications, allowing joint venture experience to be considered for bidder qualifications, ensuring clarity and fairness i....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
