COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner in W.P.No.12845 of 2021 is a welfare society, which provides housekeeping and sanitation services to various large institutions and hospitals. The 3rd respondent-temple had called for tenders by way of e-procurement process for providing sanitation and housekeeping services for the period 01.11.2020 to 31.03.2022. The petitioner participated in the tender process conducted by the 3rd respondent, which constituted a five member committee to evaluate the bids submitted under the auction notification. This committee considered the bids at the technical bid stage and qualified three bidders to participate in the financial bids.

2. At that stage, the existing contractor had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.18822 of 2020 challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in calling for fresh tenders. This writ petition was dismissed on

31.03.2021. Thereupon, the tender process was restarted.

3. The price bids were opened on 03.04.2021 and the petitioner, who had quoted Rs.19,69,300/- was treated as L1. Thereafter, reverse tendering was conducted through e-procurement portal on 07.04.2021 in which the petitioner and another bidder had participated. The petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder / L1 on the basis of a quotation of Rs.18,89,564/- and the said bid was forwarded for confirmation to the 2nd respondent. However, instead of awarding the contract to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.B2/COE-12026(51)/39/2021, dated 21.06.2021 had issued the impugned order rejecting the proposal of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to approve the tender of the petitioner, with a further direction to the Executive Officer to call for fresh tenders by stipulating certain conditions. The impugned order is said to have been issued on the basis of a complaint received from one M/s. La Mclean (India) Private Limited (the petitioner in W.P.No.13365 of 2021), which had stated that the bid given by the petitioner did not comply with the minimum wage payable at that point of time and that the said M/s. La Mclean (India) Private Limited had quoted a higher sum considering the payable minimum wages declared by the Government on 01.10.2020 and that the minimum wages stipulation could not be complied with. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The complaint was that the wages payable to the staff employed for the contract was calculated by the 3rd respondent on the basis of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority. However, the said minimum wages were revised by a notification dated 01.10.2020, but the figures in the tender document, which were lower than the revised figures of 01.10.2020, were not updated and the bid tendered by the petitioner was lower than the minimum wage payable.

5. After the impugned order had been passed, the 3rd respondent had issued a fresh tender notification bearing Rs.No.M1/1153/2021, dated 05.07.2021, calling for fresh tenders for a period of 17 months from 01.11.2020 to 31.03.2022. M/s. La Mclean (India) Private Limited, which had given the complaint, on the basis of which the order dated 26.06.2021 had been issued, has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.13365 of 2021 on the ground that the bid given under the earlier tender notification should have been considered and the tender should have been decided in favour of M/s. La Mclean (India)

Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner in W.P.No.13365 of 2021’).

6. As both these writ petitions are challenging the same impugned order dated 22.06.2021, although on different grounds, they are being disposed of by this common order.

7. Before adverting to the contentions of these two petitioners as well as the respondents in these writ petitions, certain facts and terms of the contract need to be adverted to.

8. The contract in question was a contract for providing housekeeping, mechanised sanitation and sweeping services to the 3rd respondent temple