MANU CREATIONS Vs. MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is before this Court calling in question notices dtd. 30/8/2022, 3/9/2022, 30/9/2022 and 14/10/2022 issued by the 1st respondent whereby the work allotted to the petitioner is cancelled.

(2.) Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, claims to be a registered 'B' class contractor of the respondents/Military Engineering Services ('MES' for short) of the Southern Command of Defence services and claims to be working for the respondents for over two decades. It is the further claim of the partnership firm that it has successfully undertaken specialized works of high magnitude for the Defence and has narrated those works as averments in the petition. The 1st respondent in the month of October, 2021 invites bids for the work 'provision of sewage treatment plant and addition/alteration to vintage sewage lines at AF Station Tambaram' for a projected estimated cost of Rs.243.00 lakhs for execution of the said work. The petitioner finding itself eligible, submits its bid pursuant to the aforesaid invitation for the work. On 8/3/2022, the petitioner was called for negotiations and was directed to furnish 3 sets of design calculations in a design folder along with 3 sets of drawings with original tracings duly vetted by some NIT's/IIT's within 45 days or within the extended period of time. The petitioner claims to have approached NIT/IIT and sought a tentative timeline by which the drawings could be vetted for approval. It is the claim of the petitioner that despite its efforts, the NIT/IIT was unable to vet the design in a time bound manner owing to various reasons including under-staffing due to COVID-19. Since the work was being dragged, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to relax the requirement of providing approvals from the hands of NITs/IITs as was done in the other case. The 1st respondent, for administrative reasons, claims to have sought the petitioner to extend the validity of its bid until 31/8/2022. Several correspondences took place between the two and on 30/8/2022, letter of acceptance given to the petitioner on 08/3/2022 stood revoked on the ground that the petitioner was disinterested in executing the work and determined the damages at Rs.3,18,000.00 and also blacklisted the petitioner from participating in any of the MES tenders. It is these actions that are called in question in the subject petition.