KUNWAR CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has made a bid as a proprietorship firm for a work contract floated by respondent no. 2 i.e. National Project Construction Corporation Ltd., which is a State Corporation which undertakes civil construction works. It was a two bid process and the entire cost of the project was Rs. 855.57/- Lakh. One of the conditions in the bid document was that a bidder must have undertaken a work of 50% of the cost of the present project, which comes to Rs. 427.78 lakh. The petitioner's bid was technically disqualified vide order dated 18.11.2019 on ground that the work done by the petitioner is less than the required value of the work. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(2.) The reason for making the petitioner disqualified is that what is shown by the petitioner as a qualification for having done a similar work having requisite value was not in his individual capacity but in the capacity as a partner in a Joint Venture, where admittedly he has put in 25% of investment, though the value of the entire work is more than Rupees Five Crore. The ground on which it has been rejected was that the petitioner will not get the benefit of the work done but will only get the benefit of carrying experience in relation to the investment, which the petitioner has done which is 25% of investment which is much less than Rupees Four Crore Fifty Five Lakh Only.

(3.) The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that his percentage of investment cannot be compared with his experience. The experience which he has acquired will be of the total value of the project. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has only invested 25% of that project but the experience which will be taken into consideration will be the entire cost of the project i.e. Rupees Four Crore Fifty Five lakh odd. To support his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Atasha Ashirwad Builders (J.V.) Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the said judgment reads as under: