SARAS GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following relief:-

(2.) Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that Notice Inviting Tender No.2022_MoRTH_709792_1 was floated by respondent No.3 on 1/9/2022 for construction of two-lane with paved shoulder for improvement of geometry from km 50. 290 to 53.330 of NH 353 of Mahasamund-Khariyar road Sec. in the State of Chhattisgarh. The estimated value of the tender was 9.83 crores and the prescribed period for completion of the same was 08 months and the maintenance period was 5 years. The petitioner has participated in the said tender and quoted Rs.10,48,90,000.00 as its bid. The petitioner was declared a responsive bidder after opening of both technical and financial bids. Thereafter the petitioner did not receive any communication from respondent No.3, hence, on being followed up by the petitioner, respondent No.1 had directly issued letter of Award (LoA) on 13/4/2023 in favour of the petitioner as respondent No.1 is empowered to do so as per Clause 10.5 of the Circular dtd. 23/2/2018 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH and H). Pursuant to LoA, the petitioner submitted Performance Security Deposit to the tune of Rs.31,46,700.00 to respondent No.3 vide letter dtd. 12/5/2023 through Bank Guarantee of required amount dtd. 10/5/2023. Thus, the petitioner fulfills all the conditions stipulated in the tender and as per the LoA for signing the contract with respondent No.3. Despite repeated letter and reminders to execute the agreement, respondent No.3 never responded, whereas, the petitioner has mobilized machinery, placed purchase order for required machinery and conducted survey. Even Tender Evaluation Committee after discussing, enhanced the sanction to the tune of Rs.15.61 crores recommended for execution of the agreement, but, Additional Secretary (PWD) recommended retendering to respondent No.3 vide impugned communication dtd. 23/5/2023 and in view of that respondent No.3 without giving any show-cause notice or communication of any kind or termination of LoA dtd. 13/4/2023 without any rhyme or reasons and completely illegally and arbitrarily proceeded to issue a fresh tender notice dtd. 20/7/2023 for the identical scope of the work, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the fresh tender notice dtd. 20/7/2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.3 as well as impugned communication dtd. 23/5/2023 for re-tendering as the same are completely arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He would further submit that fresh tender notice dtd. 20/7/2023 was issued despite the petitioner having been awarded the LoA dtd. 13/4/2023 in the light of being declared successful bidder on both technical and financial counts. The petitioner has also deposited requisite performance security vide letter dtd. 12/5/2023 as directed by respondent No.1. He would further submit that respondent No.3 has acted completely contrary to principles of natural justice wherein despite an existing LoA, without any showcause notice and without cancellation of the existing LoA had proceeded to issue impugned fresh tender notice.