LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-113

NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

Decided On January 29, 2009
Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd Appellant
V/S
DELHI JAL BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of unreasonable and unfair prequalifying tender condition as well as quashing of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) and award of contract to Respondent No. 2 & 3.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1-Delhi Jal Board (DJB) invited bids for construction of 55 mgd Raw Water Pumping Station and laying an additional 1500 mm diameter Raw Water Mains from Chainage 11.5 to WTP at Dwarka and MS clear Water Mains of diameter varying from 600 mm to 1600 mm from WTP Dwarka to various areas of Dwarka, Najafgarh, Daulatpur, Ujwa and IGI Airport in three packages- 1A, 1B and III.

(3.) APPEARING for the Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned counsel strenuously argued that the requirement of the bidder or its approved manufacturer partner having experience in the manufacure of expansion joints in terms of Clause 4.2.24.8 was completely unnecessary as the requirement of expansion joints in the entire project was negligible. Further the same being a totally fabricated item being manufactured by some specialized vendors could have been procured from the open market and that therefore the said qualifying condition was tailored to suit only one company namely M/s Pratibha Industries Ltd., Respondent No.3 herein and its associate bidder namely the Respondent No.2 and the said D S Construction who as aforesaid has formed a cartel. It was also urged that the Respondent No.1 in its earlier projects of a similar nature have never stipulated any such condition and the stipulation was, according to learned counsel, without any rational nexus with object sought to be achieved, and consequently liable to be struck down. The stipulation of an experience of in-house manufacture of expansion joints, according to counsel for the Petitioner, was unwarranted and aimed at excluding eligible bidders from competition. The threshold criteria as stipulated resulted in only one person qualifying technically, thereby catering to the cartel, which was contrary to public interest, and also ensured elimination of competition from the remaining competent bidders.