N C NAHAR Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 and further prayed for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to take part in the tender process issued by the respondent authorities including in the notice inviting tender dated 13.8.2008.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that in response to the notice inviting tender dated 20.11.2007 for construction and maintenance of the rural roads the petitioner submitted his offer. The tenders were opened as per schedule and the petitioner stood as L-1, as his offer was lowest. However, instead of finalizing the contract in his favour, he was served with a notice dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) by respondent No.3 stating therein that he has submitted false or incomplete information for calculation of his bid capacity and has also concealed some works, agreements, which are still in progress. In the said notice details of information, which were not furnished, have been given. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the bid submitted by him be not treated as non-responsive and action be taken against him as per Clause 34 of the Instructions to Bidders (for short I.T.B.'). The petitioner in his reply dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) admitted that the information regarding work-in-hand under Package No.CG12-24 of work order No.3/IPU Dindori was not incorporated in the list due to oversight & clerical error and prayed for condoning the said error. With respect to non-submission of information of the work in hand amounting to Rs.301.80 Lac issued by the E.E., PWD, Durg/Kawardha detailing in Para-3, it was replied that 90% work against the above work order has been completed. With respect to other work of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg, it was stated that work of Rs. 1.55 Lac has already been completed. After receiving the reply of the petitioner, respondent No.3 vide his memo dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P-6) directed the petitioner to extend validity period of offer till 30.4.2008. By yet another letter dated 29.3.2008, the petitioner was again asked to extend validity offer up to 31.5.2008. However, the petitioner was served with another show cause notice dated 04.06.2008 alleging therein that on examination of technical documents submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice inviting tenders No. 124 & 125 it was found that the petitioner did not show his contract works under PWD Durg & Kawardha, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Durg and M.P. Pradhan Mantri Grahmin Sadak Yozna in works-in-hand furnished by the petitioner. Complaint in this regard was found to be true and therefore, declaring bid of the petitioner as non-responsive, tender for group of work was cancelled treating the petitioner as ineligible.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit as well in the oral arguments have submitted that the petitioner has not denied that he concealed information while submitting his tender. Concealment was deliberate and the same was done with a view to bring himself within the eligibility criteria. Condition No.4.4B(a)(iii) of the tender document clearly stipulates that every bidder must demonstrate availability of construction work either owned or on lease, or on hire along with the ITB, however, the petitioner concealed the works already in hand while submitting his technical bid which came to the floor only after information was collected in this regard. A bidder comes in the category of eligible bidder according to his bid only when his bid capacity, which is technically termed as assessed available bid capacity and calculated according to the formula given in Condition No.4.6. Condition No. 4.7 empowers the department to disqualify any bidder on any of the conditions enumerated in Condition No.4.7 even if the bidder meets the qualifying criteria as per Condition No.4.6. Since the petitioner deliberately suppressed various incomplete works available with him in the relevant period, his bid was treated as non-responsive and tender process for group of work was cancelled. After issuing show cause notice and in view of the reply submitted by the petitioner, he has been disqualified from participating in tender process for a period of one year from the date of issuance of order of Annexure P-1.