PICHKAL VENKATESHWARA RAO Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND SRI. S.V. BANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P. Nos. 22895/2013 and 22896/2013 is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.05.2013 passed in Appeal Nos. 2/2013 and 1/2013 respectively. Since the issue and the contentions urged are similar and since the parties to the proceedings are also the same except that the bid invited is for two different packages, the petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of narration of facts, the case as pleaded in W.P. No. 22895/2013 is referred to as the lead case. The petitioner is stated to be a Private Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. When tenders were invited by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relating to the construction of Barrage -cum -pick up across Suvarnamuki River near Heroor Village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District in a II -Tier System by the tender indent dated 24.08.2012, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 herein among others have responded to the same. The Technical Bid submitted by the respondent No. 4 had been rejected by the Tender Scrutiny Committee. Against such action, the respondent No. 4 was before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 2/2013, which is relevant in the instant case. As noticed, a similar appeal in Appeal No. 1/2013 is filed, which relates to the companion petition. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 16.05.2013 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected the Technical Bid of the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the respondents were directed to consider the Technical Bid of the appellant and proceed with the tender process. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the Appellate Authority in fact has deviated from the tender conditions which had been indicated in the tender documents, which were required to be complied by the parties. In that regard, to point out the requirement, the learned counsel has referred to Clauses 3.2(c) and 3.3 of the tender conditions relating to which a grievance is putforth. In that regard, it is contended that the minimum work that was required to be performed with regard to the revetment is 2936.00 sqm. and insofar as the availability of the equipment, 50% of the same was to be owned and 50% to be hired. In the instant case, the respondent No. 4 did not possess a Crane with Tripod is the contention and had not carried out revetment work to that extent. In that view, it is contended that the Technical Evaluation Committee did not find that the respondent No. 4 had complied with the said requirement and therefore the Technical Bid had been rightly rejected.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, the contesting respondent No. 4 would contend that what has been noticed by the Appellate Authority in fact is not any new document that has been produced, but only a clarification with regard to what was already existing, but had been wrongly not taken into consideration by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It is pointed out that the very perusal of the order would indicate that the Appellate Authority has discussed this aspect of the matter and taken note of the fact that the assessment made by the Evaluation Committee had not been properly done. Even with regard to the equipment, appropriate consideration has been made by the Appellate Authority and the order has been passed. In that view, it is contended that the Appellate Authority was justified and the order does not call for interference.