SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ori) 20

High Court Of Orissa
Honble Judges:A. K. Patnaik And A. K. Parichha, JJ.
MAA CHANDI STONE CRUSHING - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER (CON) - Respondent
W. P. (C) 13162  Of  2003
Decided On : 01/07/2005

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK K.PARIJA, B.CH.MOHANTY, B.MISRA, B.ROUT, C.NAYAK, D.K.DAS, N.K.Mohapatra, P.B.SINHA, P.K.DASH, P.K.Panda, P.P.MOHANTY, R.K.TRIPATHI, S.K.MISHRA, S.P.SARANGI, SANJIT MOHANTY, SHYAMANANDA MOHAPATRA

The court emphasized that the tender committee's decision should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational, and that public interest and project timelines should be considered in such cases.

Headnote:

Tender Rejection - Eligibility Criteria - Clause 6.1 of the tender notice - Contractors pre-qualified in category 5 Slab A under CE (E)-I, BBS or all CE (C)s of South Eastern Railway or tenderers those who have satisfactorily completed supply of minimum 20,000 cum of ballast in one agreement under any government or Semi Government Organization during last 5 (five) years are eligible to participate in the tender.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's tender for a railway project was rejected due to not meeting the eligibility criteria of supplying a minimum of 20,000 cum of ballast in one agreement under any government or semi-government organization during the last five years. The petitioner argued that it had completed the supply within the tolerance limit and should have been given an opportunity for a hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per Clause 6.1 of the tender notice. The court held that the rejection of the tender was not arbitrary and did not violate the principles of natural justice.

Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender based on the eligibility criteria was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tender committee's view, though rigid, was not arbitrary and did not violate the principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized that interference at this stage would affect public interest and lead to cost escalation and project delays.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) BY a notice dated 1. 9. 2003 the Chief Engineer (Con) - I East Coast railway, Bhubaneswar invited tenders for "supply and stacking of machine crushed hard stone ballast on top of formation or at toe of bank or at suitable places between Km. 123. 00 and Km. 135. 50 including Sagadapata Station Yard of Tomka Banspani Rail Link project". Clause 6. 1 of the said notice dated 1. 9. 2003 provided that contractors prequalified in category 5 slab A under CE (E)-I, BBS or all ce (C)s of South Eastern Railway or tenderers who have satisfactorily completed supply of minimum 20,000 cum. of ballast in one agreement under any Government or Semi Government Organization during the last five years are eligible to participate in the tender. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner, Opp. Party No. 4 and Sri durga Condev (P) Ltd. submitted their tenders quoting the value as per details given hereunder :

Sl .

No. 1. M/s. Maa Chandi Stone

Name of Total Value

quoted Rs. 2,81,94,453. 00 47% above

% above/below the tender value

  Crushing (Petitioner) 2. M/s. ARSS Stones

  Pvt. Ltd. (O. P. No. 4) 3. M/s. Sri Durga

Rs. 2,83,86,252. 00 48% above

 

Condev (P) Ltd.

Rs. 2,85,78,051. 00

 

49% above

 

 

The tender of the petitioner, though lowest, was rejected for the reason that the petitioner did not satisfactorily complete supply of minimum of 20,000 cum. of ballast in one agreement under any government or Semi Government Organization during the last five years. Instead, the contract was awarded to the Opp. Party No. 4 at a value of Rs. 2,45,50,272/- by letter dated 25. 11. 2003 of the office of the Chief Engineer (Con) -I, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for quashing the said communication dated 25. 11. 2003 of the office of the chief Engineer (Con) - I, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar in annexure-6 to the Writ Petition and for directing the work to be allotted in favour of the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON 23. 12. 2003 the Court while issuing notice in the Writ Petition w. P. (C) No. 13162 of 2003 passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 12910 of 2003 directing that till the matter is again listed, execution of the agreement in favour of Opp. Party No. 4 pursuant to Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition shall remain stayed. Thereafter Misc. Case No. 6262 of 2004 has been filed by Opp. Party No. 4 and Misc. Case No. 7072 of 2004 was filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 3 praying for vacating the said interim order dated 23. 12. 2003. The Writ Petition and all the said misc. cases were heard together on 6. 10. 2004.

( 3 ) AT the hearing, Mr. Shyamanand Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Agreement No. 50 dated 18. 6. 2001 between the petitioner and the Railways, the petitioner had been awarded a contract for supply and delivery in stacks of machine crushed hard stone ballast of a quantity of 20,000 cum. and the said agreement provided that the quantity of stone basllast mentioned in the Schedule was approximate and tolerance of 5 percent on either side may be allowed. He submitted that in accordance with the said agreement, the petitioner supplied 19,961. 47 cum. of ballast which was 0. 19 percent less than 20,000 cum. of ballast and was therefore within the tolerance limit of 5 percent. He submitted that after the said supply of 19,961,47 cum. of ballast, the Divisional Engineer (North)East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, issued a certificate on 21. 10. 2003 that the petitioner successfully completed supply and loading of 20,000 cum. of ballast as per the agreement. He submitted that these documents had been furnished by the petitioner along with his tender and these documents would show that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria in Clause 6. 1 of the tender notice dated 1. 9. 2003 that a tenderer must have satisfactorily completed supply of minimum of 20,000 cum. of ballast in one agreement under any Government or semi G

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top