2009 Supreme(Mad) 350
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
M/s. G.D. Builders, Rep. by G. Dandapani, Puducherry
Versus
The Government of Puducherry, rep. by Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition Nos.25225 & 25226 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.25225, 25226 of 2008
Decided on: 28-01-2009
For the Petitioner:S. Parthasarathy SC, T.R. Rajaraman, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 T. Murugesan, SC Government Pleader, R4 M.S.Krishnan, SC Sarvabhuman Associates, R5 S.Sundararaj Advocates.
The court upheld the eligibility criteria for contractors, finding it to be in line with the CPWD Works Manual 2003 and 2007, and not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Eligibility Criteria - Public Works Department Contracts - Section 17 of CPWD Works Manual 2003, Section 13.1 of CPWD Works Manual 2007 - The court upheld the eligibility criteria for contractors, finding it to be in line with the CPWD Works Manual 2003 and 2007. The court also rejected the petitioner's estoppel argument and dismissed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered contractor, challenged the eligibility criteria for tender notices issued by the Public Works Department. The petitioner argued that the criteria were based on CPWD Manual 2003 and ran counter to CPWD Manual 2007, which had already come into force.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the eligibility criteria were in line with the CPWD Works Manual 2003 and 2007, and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also rejected the petitioner's estoppel argument.
Issues: The main issue was whether the eligibility criteria for the tender notices were in line with the CPWD Works Manual and constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the eligibility criteria conformed to the CPWD Works Manual 2003 and 2007, and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the principle of estoppel did not apply in this case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the eligibility criteria and rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument.
The petitioner is a registered contractor in the category Class I in the Public Works Department, Puducherry for a period of 5 years up to 02.04.2010 and he is eligible to tender for works in Public Works Department of Puducherry subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as laid down in any notice inviting tenders and the CPWD Manual 2003. The renewal of contract was issued by the Public Works Department by memorandum dated 30.05.2005. Though, it is stated that the petitioner firm could enter into a contract with Public Works Department, Puducherry with a money limit of Rs.10 crores, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, during arguments would fairly concede that the money limit is only Rs.5 crores and he would submit that it has been mistakenly typed out as 10 lakhs in the affidavit.
2. The third respondent namely, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Puducherry issued a press Notice in No.1082/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.460/08-09 dated 30.09.2008 calling for tenders from contractors registered with the Public Works Department, Puducherry, Central Public Works Department, Military Engineering Service and other State Public Works Departments to award contract to execute the work of Improvement of riding quality in Km 16/122 -24/000 of NH 45A in Puducherry at an approximate estimated cost of Rs.3,57,63,207/-. Similarly, the third respondent issued another press notice on similar terms and conditions to award contract to execute the work of Improvement of riding quality in Km 24/000-29/800 of NH 45A in Puducherry at an approximate estimated cost of Rs.2,78,41,748/-. One of the eligibility criteria as per press notice No.1081/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.460/08-09 dated 30.09.2008 is as follows:-
"All contractors should produce documentary evidence in support of their having satisfactorily completed;
(i)3 similar works each of value Rs.1.44 crores or
(ii)two works each of value Rs.1.79 crores or
(iii)one work of Rs.2.87 crores in the last seven years ending last day of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited.
3. The petitioner challenges the said clause in Press Notice No.1081/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.460/08-09 dated 30.09.2008 in W.P.No.25225 of 2008.
4. Similarly, one of the eligibility criteria as per the press notice No.1082/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.460/08-09 dated 30.09.2008 is as follows:- "All contractors should produce documentary evidence in support of their having satisfactorily completed;
(i)3 similar works each of value Rs.1.12 crores or (ii)two works each of value Rs.1.40 crores or (iii)one work of Rs.2.23 crores in the last seven years ending last day of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited.
5. The petitioner challenges the said clause in Press Notice No.1082/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.460/08-09 dated 30.09.2008 in W.P.No.25226 of 2008.
6. Admittedly, the above requirement for eligibility of tenders have been prescribed following Central Public Works Department Works Manual 2003 (hereinafter referred to as CPWD Manual 2003). The above criteria can be stated otherwise as provided in the mannual as follows:-
(i)three similar works, each of value 40% of estimated cost or
(ii)two works each of value 50% of estimated cost, or
(iii)one work of 80% estimated cost (rounded off to nearest Rs.10 lakhs) in the last 7 years ending last day of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited.
7. Admittedly, CPWD Works Manual was issued regulating the contracts of the Central Public Works Department. But the Government of Puducherry in letter No.19930/CS/JS/PW/70 dated 25.04.1970 sought for permission from the Government of India for making the CPWD Code and Manual together with all the delegations contained therein applicable to the PWD of Puducherry Government in so far as execution of works are concerned. On considering the same, the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Planning and Works Housing & Urban Development through letter No.14013(3)/70-EWI, dated