G.H. RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Class-I KPWD Contractor with registration No.CBS/9707/2010. The Executive Engineer, National Highways Special Division 2nd respondent, on 02.07.2013, invited short term tender through e- Procurement for providing crash barrier from Km 290/200 to 368/200 of NH-234 Sira-Gowribidanur section in selected parts (Job No.2034-KNT-2012-13/705) vide Tender Notification bearing No.EE/NH Spl Dn/JE/RS/NH- 234/NIT-04/2012-13. The petitioner submitted his bid along with earnest money deposit. Technical bids of the petitioner and the 5th respondent were opened on 19.07.2013 and was sent to the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle 3rd respondent. Technical Bids Evaluation Committee, on 24.07.2013, found that only one bidder is responsive and decided to re-invite a short term tender for the work. A re-tender of the work was directed.

(2.) The 2nd respondent issued a fresh tender notification on 30.07.2013. The petitioner, 4th respondent and 5th respondent having submitted their respective bids, the same were opened through e-portal on 21.08.2013 and 22.08.2013, since, on the due date i.e., on 12.08.2013, there was network problem. The 2nd respondent found on 13.08.2013 vide Annexure-F, that the petitioner and 5th respondent meet the eligibility criteria. However, finding that the bid of 4th respondent as not meeting the eligibility criteria, recommendation was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. Technical Bids Evaluation Committee, in the meeting held on 02.09.2013, found the Technical Bids of petitioner, 4th and 5th respondents is responsive. However, the 2nd respondent was directed to obtain unconditional line of credit in the prescribed format from the 4th respondent before issuing the work order. The Committee having decided to open the financial bids of the three bidders and direction having been given to the second respondent to open the financial binds, this writ petition was filed, on 24.09.2013, to quash the said proceedings dated 02.09.2013, as at Annexure-G and asking for a mandamus against the 2nd respondent, not to accept the technical bid of the 4th respondent and not to issue work order.

(3.) Statement of objections to the writ petition was filed by the 3rd respondent, by contending that the 2nd respondent while issuing the tender notification and publishing in tender bulletin and e-procurement, nowhere it was notified that the contractors registered in the KPWD are alone eligible to participate in the tender process and the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee having come to the conclusion that the bid of the 4th respondent is responsive, the 2nd respondent was directed to open the technical bids of all the tenderers including the 4th respondent, with certain conditions including obtaining of unconditional line of credit in the prescribed format, before issuing the work order. It was stated that the limit of amount of work for participating in the tender for the 4th respondent was '6.50 lakhs in the Government of Maharastra and that the 4th respondent meets all the tender criteria required in the tender invited on 30.07.2013. It was further stated that the financial bids were opened and the 4th respondent became the lowest bidder i.e., -2.54% less than the estimated cost and the petitioner, who has quoted +5.30%, above the estimated cost, i.e., 17.84% in excess of the tender amount, however, being the second lowest, filed this petition intentionally which speaks of his intention to gain.