Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1181 of 2019
Decided On : 14-03-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Quashing of Tender Summary Report – Employment and services - Brief facts of case as per pleading made in this writ petition are that the petitioner being a lead partner Consulting Engineers Ltd which is a global Company in business of providing all engineering and execution services in the fields of water waste water irrigation rural agricultural development and solid waste management Transmission of Oil & Gas to its customers worldwide while second partner of petitioner is also well-established Company in the field of electrical components of infrastructure projects and has successfully executed several works - Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. has issued a Notice Inviting Tender for work of Integrated Infrastructure Development Works which include Transport & Circulation Road Side Plantation and Arboriculture Storm Water Drainage Water Supply & Recycle Water System Water System Waste Water System Power Infrastructure, Smart Street Lighting System and Land Development in ABD area of Ranchi Smart City in State on EPC basic followed by performance-based O & M of Infrastructure component created for a period of five years including Defect Liability Period of one year – Held, It is further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that before opening of Technical Bid candidature of petitioner has been rejected meaning thereby he has argued that his case has not been placed before Tender Committee but as would be evident from Annexure-5 candidature of petitioner was rejected on basis of the proceedings of Tender Committee of its meeting held and as such it cannot be said that it is not by Tender Committee - Further argument has been advanced that respondent has been shown premium since they are also not fulfilling the criteria/conditions stipulated in the ITB to the effect pertaining to experience and to that effect statement has been relied upon as has been made at paragraph to writ petition but this Court after going across the document of the Tender Committee, as annexed at Annexure-5 at page it is evident that the Tender Committee, which consists of nine members of the Committee of the officials of the different departments have appreciated documents furnished by the other Bidders including the Respondent and after being satisfied with the aforesaid documents decision has been taken for selection of Respondent by rejecting the Bid of Respondent and one Projects Limited - So far as the assertion made in the writ petition as under Para this Court after going across aforesaid statement made therein has found that a vague and bald statement has been made pertaining to condition of experience of five years and save and except no assertion has been made in support of it by placing reliance upon any document, while it is evident from the documents, as on page that the Tender Committee has taken into consideration experience part of the Respondent by discussing it in the Tabular Chart, the said document has been annexed by petitioner and therefore statement made at Para is in conflict with the document and as such is not to be considered – Accordingly this argument is not acceptable to this Court hence rejected - Writ petition fails and it is dismissed
ORDER :
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the following reliefs have been sought for:-
(a) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Tender Summary Report (Annexure-7) as uploaded on the website of the Jharkhand Tender in so far as it relates to the bid of the Petitioner being declared non-responsive at the scrutiny stage and the bids of the Private Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 being declared technically responsive though they did not fulfill the terms and conditions and experience/expertise as required in terms of the Bid Documents for N.I.T. No. JUIDCO/Smart City Project/Ranchi/1982/2018/191 (“the Tender”)
(b) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder the Bid of the Petitioner has been declared as non-responsive at the scrutiny stage although the petitioner has submitted the Bid Security as required in the Tender whereas adequate opportunity was given by seeking clarifications from the rest bidders;
(c) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the Bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been declared as technically responsive although both the Respondents do not meet the technical qualification criteria as specified in the Tender;
(d) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure-6), whereby the Tender Committee has recommended opening the financial bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 although their technical bids ought to have been declared as technically non-responsive being not meeting the technical qualification criteria of the Tender;
(e) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to declare the Bid of the Petitioner as responsive as the Petitioner has duly submitted the bid security as required in the Tender and otherwise fulfills and meets the requisite Technical Specification and Financial Resources in terms of the Tender to successfully execute the work, however, has been purposely and deliberately declared non-responsive & thereby ousted from the Tender process, so as to accommodate and Award the work to the Respondent No. 5;
(f) The Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order of direction commanding upon the respondents and showing them cause as to how and under what circumstances the technical qualification criteria as required under “the tender” has been relaxed in violation of the doctrine of fairness and reasonableness and the Tender and the non-responsive Bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been declared as responsive;
(g) The petitioner particularly prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction initiating an enquiry into the collusion of the Respondents no. 2 to 4 with the Respondent No. 5 & 6.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in this writ petition are that the petitioner being a lead partner i.e. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., which is a global Company in the business of providing all engineering and execution services in the fields of water, waste water, irrigation, rural agricultural development and solid waste management, Transmission of Oil & Gas to its customers worldwide, while the second partner of the petitioner, namely, M/s. Raj Corporation Ltd is also well-established Company in the field of electrical components of infrastructure projects and has successfully executed several works.
The Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) has issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 31.12.2018 for the work of “Integrated Infrastructure Development W
SupremeToday
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
