A requirement for a site visit certificate in a corrigendum relating to 'similar work' experience cannot be interpreted as a mandatory requirement for the current tender's site visit if the original tender clause only encouraged such visits.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The petitioner challenges the action of the Corporation in not considering his bid and seeks for a direction that his bid should be opened and considered.

2. The argument of the learned counsel is that there is no doubt a clause in the tender regarding site visit, which reads as under:

“7.1 The Bidder, at the Bidder’s own responsibility and risk is encouraged to visit and examine the Site of work and its surrounding and obtain all information that may be necessary for preparing the Bid and entering into a contract for construction/renovation of the Works. The costs of visiting the site shall be at the Bidder’s own expense.”

3. It is his case that this particular clause does not mandate the securing of the certificate from an engineer by the petitioner for having made the site visit. According him, this clause only encourages the bidders such as the petitioner to visit and examine the site and familiarize themselves with the location so that they would be in a better position to understand the scope of the work and the difficulties that they may face during the execution of the contract. He submits that since this particular clause regarding site visit remained unamended and did not make it mandatory for getting certificate duly signed by the engineers, the refusal on the part of the Corporation to open his bid, because he did not produce a certificate duly signed by the engineers, is vitiated.

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submits that there was a corrigendum issued on 22.01.2026 in which the clause relating to similar work was modified and it was stated that a site visit certificate issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer should be submitted online.

5. Prima facie, in our view, this site visit certificate cannot be relatable to the site on which the proposed work under the tender is to be executed.

6. A reading of the entire corrigendum, extract of which is as follows, would indicate that similar works are to be established by the bidder:-

“Required Similar Work as Experience of having successfully completed similar work during last 7 years ending last day of month previous to the one in which application are invited should be either of this following At least one work of 40 percent of the value of proposed contract ( in form of 3 A) Construction of Non Residential And Non Industrial Building for Government, Semi-government, or local self government having Buildings Such as construction of Institution/Public Use Building (Town Hall/Hospital/Auditorium/Multi Purposes Hall) comprising construction of a multi storied RCC framed structure having minimum Basement & G+4 Storey & Above (machine room and mumty shall not be counted as a storey) including finishing works, electrical & Elv works, firefighting, Lifts and Centralized HVAC, MGPS, completed OR at least 90% gross value of all work completed and Site visit certificate issued by deputy executive engineer and executive engineer of JuMC must submit online.”

7. A plain reading of this would indicate that the site visit certificate in respect of the works completed, that is the similar work that was completed was the subject matter of the corrigendum. This corrigendum cannot obviously be related to Clause 7.1, which specifically dealt with the site inspection certificate.

8. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to grant an interim order directing the respondent to consider the bid of the petitioner and evaluate the same along with other bidders.

9. Issue notice to respondent No.2, who is stated to be L1,