KANHAIYA LAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the action on the part of the 3rd respondent whereby the 3rd respondent has decided to retender the work as mentioned in NIT-513 for system tender No.61986 and NIT-518 for system tender No.63368 respectively vide Annexure P/1.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, are that, Respondent No.3 had issued tender notification bearing Nos. NIT513 for system tender No.61986 and NIT-518 for system tender No.63368 for construction and maintenance of rural road in Mungeli vide Package No.CG02-131 including 4 roads admeasuring 29.41 kms and construction and maintenance of rural road in Bilaspur/Takhatpur vide Package No.CG02-132 including 7 roads admeasuring 50.16 kms. respectively. The petitioner participated in the tender proceedings and submitted his bid for both the tender notifications. He became successful upon opening of his techno commercial bid and upon opening of the financial bid, he became L1 in both the tender proceedings upon amongst tenderers who participated and qualified in techno commercial bid. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a letter on 08.06.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent mentioning that a complaint was received by his office making allegation against the petitioner that he has not shown the entire work at hand i.e. PWD/ADB Pali-Silli Road Package No.23, valuing about Rs.55.09 Crore, of which, work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 08.05.2020. On account of aforementioned work, which was not disclosed, the petitioner is not having required bid capacity. The letter issued by the 3rd respondent was replied by the petitioner stating therein that the work which has been shown to as not disclosed in a complaint, was in fact awarded not to the petitioner, but to a joint venture firm, namely "M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal-Vinod Kumar Jain JV", which is a separate legal entity, but as per terms and conditions of the tender document, there is no requirement of disclosing the work of other joint venture in which the petitioner is one of the member/partner.

(3.) The respondents have considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and after considering the contents of the reply as also considering the terms and conditions of NITs, held that the petitioner has not disclosed the work order issued by the PWD. It is also considered that in the said joint venture, the petitioner is having 95% share and the other person of joint venture i.e. Vinod Kumar Jain is having only 5% share. This information was suppressed by not mentioning in the tender document submitted by the petitioner and after taking note of the clause 28 and 28.1, decided to re-tender of both the works i.e. NITs No.513 and 518 respectively.