order

10.03.2021 Heard Mr. S Kataky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the GMDA is present.

The petitioner is aggrieved due to issuance of notice inviting re-tender bearing No.

GMDA/DEV/113/2017/94 dated 04.01.2021 and No. GMDA/DEV/24/2018/140 dated 04.01.2021 in respect of the works regarding development of Odalbakra Rajohuwa Smashan and construction of Sudarshan Path near Kalapani. The respondent No. 2 issued tender notice vide No. GMDA/DEV/60/2020/04 dated 15.07.2020 by which the respondent No. 2 invited tender from the intending tenderers for settlement of four numbers of works. The last date for submission of tender was fixed on 06.08.2020 till 2.30 pm. Similarly vide tender notice No. GMDA/DEV/24/2018/84 dated 31.07.2020 the respondent No. 2 invited tender from the intending tenderers for 14 number of works. The last date for submission of tender was fixed on 25.08.2020 till 2.30 pm. The petitioner participated in the tender process initiated vide tender notice dated 15.07.2020 and 31.07.2020 and submitted his tender for development of Odalbakra Rajohuwa Smashan and construction of the Sudarshan Path near Kalapani. The tenders were opened after which the tender papers were examined by the respondents. The tenders of the petitioner were found valid and the petitioner stood lowest in respect of the both works. The petitioner quoted 15.35 % and 12.90 % below the APWD schedule of rate. The petitioner came to learn that the respondent No. 2 had issued the impugned notice inviting re-tender bearing Nos. GMDA/DEV/113/2017/94 and GMDA/DEV/24/2018/140 dated 04.01.2021 and published in the news papers dated 05.01.2021 in respect of both the works in which the petitioner stood as the lowest bidder in the earlier tender process. Submitting that the impugned notice inviting the re-tender is violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Kataki sought for setting aside the subsequent re-tenders impugned in this writ petition.

The respondent No. 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit it is the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 that during tender evaluation process it was found that out of 22 number of schemes, in 20 numbers L1 bidders quoted rates below ranging from 12.9 % to 23.17777% on the estimated value of the work leaving aside two number of schemes wherein the L1 bidder quoted 10% below as per estimated work value. The estimates were issued as per APWD schedule of rates 2013-14 for building works and APWD schedule of rates 2018-19 for road works. The respondents were apprehensive that the the lower rates quoted by the bidders might adversely affect the quality of the work as well as the completion of the work. Thereafter a clarification was sought for from the Government for taking necessary action keeping in view the abnormal rates quoted by L1 bidders. The Government instructed to follow PWD notification No. RBPC 85/2017/25 dated 12.07.2018 wherein it is specifically stated:

“Variation of the quoted price upto 5% (Positive or negative) over the approved estimated cost of a civil work may be ignored; and variation of the quoted price upto 10% (positive or negative) may be allowed for peculiar situations and in special circumstances and the reason for allowing to do so shall be placed or recorded by the officer(s) responsible for accepting the tenders/ bids. Tenders/ bids beyond this limit shall not be accepted.”

Thereafter, in the review meeting held on 30.12.2020 in the office of the GMDA, it was decided that any tenders for GMDA’s project/ scheme already published and subsequently found that if the L1 bidder had quoted absurd rate, then tender evaluation committee should go for re-tendering and on the basis of the said resolution of the review meeting re-tenders were floated.

Ms. Bhattacharjee on the basis of the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 submits that as the rates quoted were much below the work value estimated under such circum