M.T.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a partnership firm, is before this Court apprehending that the petitioner would not be selected despite it having submitted the lowest tender. The petitioner had applied for a work as per Ext.P1 notification. The tenders were invited from registered bidders of PWD, who had successfully completed at least one similar work costing more than 40% of the estimated Probable Amount of Contract [PAC] during the last five years. The petitioner, as a firm, did not have such post qualification.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that three out of the four partners of the petitioner firm are registered A class contractors, who have the experience, the Certificates of which were produced along with the tender documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that partnership cannot be treated to be a separate entity from its partners and hence the qualification of the individual partners would be more than sufficient. It is also submitted that the Government has subsequently withdrawn the post qualification of works in which the PAC is lower than Rs.5 Crores.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that the subsequent notification withdrawing the post qualification cannot have any effect on an already published notification inviting tenders, wherein there was a post qualification specifically prescribed. It is also submitted that the petitioner in addition to having no post qualification, had not uploaded the details of the machinery required and the undertaking to provide required machineries. The petitioner had in fact produced an agreement with another firm for provision of the machineries. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who is the second lowest bidder, submits that the notification specifically provided for the tenderer being qualified in so far as having executed similar work; costing more than 40% in PAC in the last five years. There cannot be any contention raised of the partners having such qualification especially since then any person could on the basis of the partnership created; get over the qualification and bid for the work on the basis of the experience of the other partners. A camouflage so engaged would defeat the very purpose of insisting for experience.