The court can intervene in contract award decisions if they are unreasonable and against public interest.

JUDGMENT :

The instant application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of a communication dated 11.08.2023 issued by the respondent authorities whereby the private respondent no. 3 has been awarded contract. While the petitioner claims that in the tender process, the petitioner had emerged as the L1 bidder, the award has been given by the impugned order to the respondent no. 3, who was the L4 bidder.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be beneficial if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

3. The respondent Railways had initiated a tender process for the work of installation and display system for upgradation of Station at 11 numbers of Stations under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme of the Rangia Division. Such display system was by use of Video Wall and Monitor/TV. The claimant petitioner, who claims to be eligible in all respect, had submitted its bid by offering an amount of Rs.1,67,59,615.83/- and was adjudged the L1 bidder. On the other hand, the bid of the respondent no. 3 was for an amount of Rs.1,95,20,685.83. However, vide the impugned communication dated 11.08.2023, the award has been granted in favour of the respondent no. 3.

4. I have heard Shri P. Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondent Railways are represented by Shri B. Chakraborty, the learned CGC. The respondent no. 3 is represented by learned counsel, Shri AK Gupta. The materials placed before this Court have been duly considered.

5. From the pleadings, more particularly the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, it transpires that the only reason for supporting the impugned action is that the petitioner failed to fulfill certain conditions of the tender.

6. Shri Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to clause 10.1 has submitted that to be eligible for the work in question, a bidder is required to fulfill any of the three conditions namely, having done three similar nature of works of 30% of the tender value; two similar nature of works of value 40% of the present tender; one similar work of 60% of the tender value. It is submitted that the petitioner fulfils the aforesaid condition inasmuch as, it had completed one work with 60% of the tender value of the present work. He however, submits that by introducing an unreasonable interpretation of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been sought to be treated as ineligible for the same work. He submits that there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner fulfils the aforesaid condition under clause 10.1 as the work already undertaken by him is more than 60% of the present work in question.

7. Per Contra, Shri Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Railways has submitted that the impugned action is taken by adhering to the conditions of the tender. By referring to clause 10.4.3 and 10.4.4 of the Contract, the learned CGC has submitted that clause 10 lays down the eligibility criteria. It is submitted that under clause 10.4.3 to be eligible, a bidder has to have the credentials of a work which is physically completed and completion certificate is issued by the concerned organization, but final bill pending, such work shall be considered for fulfillment of such credentials. However, as per clause 10.4.4, it is laid down that in case of completed work, the value of final bill including PVC amount shall be considered as the completion cost of work. In case final bill is pending, only the total gross amount already paid, including the PVC amount shall be considered as the completion cost of work. Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had done an earlier work, the amount paid to him is only for Rs.1.17 crores whereas the requirement under clause 10.1 is for a work of value of Rs.1.20 crores. He accordingly submits that there is no illegality or infirmity with the action taken.

8. In support of h