Essential tender eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with, and any deviation leads to arbitrary exercise of power, warranting judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

By way of filing writ petition under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner craves to question the legality, propriety and reasonableness in declaring the bid of the opposite party No.2-Maa Mangala Construction as technically qualified despite having no prequalification credentials and beseeches to grant following relief(s):

“In the circumstances, it is most graciously prayed for that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the writ application and be pleased to:

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the results of the price bid round dated 22.01.2024 declaring Opposite Party No.2 as the L-1 bidder under Annexure-9 of the instant Writ Petition;

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Opposite Party No.1 to issue the work order in the Petitioner's favour;

(iii) Pass any other or further order(s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as is duty bound ever pray.”

Facts emanate from the writ petition:

2. Notice inviting tender dated 5th October, 2023 has been floated by the opposite party No.1-National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO) relating to “Cleaning of Overhead Water Tanks of Residential and Non-residential Buildings and Underground Reservoirs in Nalconagar Township and CISF Colony by Mechanical Means”.

2.1.Five bidders including the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 participated in the tender. The opposite party No.2 submitted a copy of work order bearing No.SMLT/T&C/S02/OMC5120/5300004528/ WO/ 5840, dated 21^st December, 2019 to demonstrate its eligibility with respect to “similar work” experience.

2.2.It is alleged by the petitioner that said document does not relate to the work under advertisement, viz. “Cleaning Overhead Fresh Water Tanks and Underground Reservoirs by Mechanical Means”. It is alleged that the opposite party No.1 without considering such document in proper perspective having declared the opposite party No.2 as technically qualified proceeded to open its price bid to declare it L1 bidder.

2.3.Arbitrariness in action, bereft of application of mind and unmindful scrutiny of documents of authorites of NALCO brought the petitioner before this Court questioning the conclusion reached at by said organisation as a result of faulty decision making process.

2.4.Challenging the decision of NALCO, the instant writ petition is filed.

Hearing:

3. Heard Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Arya Tripathy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tanmay Mishra, Advocate appearing for opposite party No.1 and Sri Abhas Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for opposite party No.2.

Submissions:

4. Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Arya Tripathy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court to Annexure-5, i.e., copy of “Service Purchase Order” issued by the NALCO in favour of opposite party No.2, which indicates that the nature of work is “Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Plant” “Sewage Pump House for the year 2020-2022”, but not the similar type of work which is published in the advertisement.

4.1.He submitted that such credential as prequalification criteria does not conform to the work desired in the advertisement. Amplifying his submission, he would argue that at no stretch of imagination the work of maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Plant can be equated with the cleaning of overhead water tank. Therefore, he vociferously ur