1. Block Bhallesa is one of the remotest areas of Jammu Division. It is a part of District Doda having a Hilly-terrain. Because of lack of adequate road connectivity, the people of these areas must be badly suffering. The sun started smiling in land-locked area of Bhallesa when decision was taken for construction of road from Km 2nd L025 to Champal, Block Bhallesa, Package No. JK 04-151, Phase VIII, Stage Ist. The road was to be constructed under "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana" (for short PMGSY).

2. Fresh notice inviting e-Tenders dated 5th September, 2012 was issued by the Chief Engineer PMGSY (JKRRDA), Jammu on behalf of the Governor of J&K State whereunder fresh e-Tenders on %age Above/Excess (+) OR %age Below/Less(-) (i.e. on Percentage-Rate Basis) were invited from approved and eligible contractors registered with J&K State Government, CPWD, Railways or equivalent and other State Governments. The Tender documents were to be submitted up to 2 PM on 19th September, 2012.

3. The Competent Authority rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that 'bidder has provided wrong information in the affidavit about the litigation as is already in litigation with this department. Hence, non-responsive.'

4. Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said decision of the respondents has challenged the same in this writ petition.

5. On notice, respondents have filed objections/reply affidavit.

6. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior counsel while referring to Clause 4.7 of the "Standard Bidding Documents" (for short SBD) submitted that the reasons given for rejecting the bid of the petitioner does not synchronize sub clause (ii) of Clause 4.7 of the SBD.

7. Learned counsel submitted that illustrations given in the said Clause have reference about "record of poor performance". Learned counsel submitted that the question of poor performance would arise only when the petitioner would have been earlier allotted some work by the respondents and then for any of the cause mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4.7 of the SBD, it could be stated that his performance has been poor. Learned counsel submitted that the 'litigation history' is one of the reasons for recording poor performance. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has never been allotted any work by the official respondents, as such; having 'litigation history' is rendered inconsequential because it has reference only to "record of poor performance". Learned counsel laid emphasis on this expression "record of poor performance" and submitted that in the facts of this case, sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4.7 of the SBD would not be attracted. Learned counsel laid great emphasis on the expression "such as" appearing in sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4.7 of the SBD and submitted that all the grounds men#31;tioned therein are relatable to the "record of poor performance" only. Learned counsel submitted that the reasons given for rejecting the bid document of the petitioner does not come within the purview of sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4.7 of the SBD. Learned counsel further submitted that whatever information was required to be given in terms of NIT and SBD which include Section 3 thereof, has been properly given. Learned counsel also submitted that affidavit sworn and enclosed with the Tender document was filed in format prescribed by the official respon#31;dents. Learned counsel further submitted that the work for construction of road has been allotted to the private respondents at exorbitant rates. The petitioner had quoted almost Rs. 1.00 Crore (Rupees one Crore) lesser rate than quoted by the private respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the official respondents being custodian of the State Revenue could not award contract to private respondents which has resulted in huge loss to the State exchequer. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon "AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851", "(2003) 10 SCC 78", "(2002)1 SCC 367" and "AIR 1999 SC 666". Learned coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document