D P VEKARIYA Vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOP AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner- a building contractor has challenged the decision of respondent No.1-Surat Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "SUDA") accepting the tender of the respondent No.2-Shreeji Krupa Buildcon Ltd for tender work for construction of 1032 dwelling units for economically weaker sections of the society at village Bhastan in Surat urban area.

(2.) By tender notice (at annexure "A" to the petition) tenders were invited by the SUDA for construction of 1032 dwelling units for the economically weaker section of the society at village Bhastan in Surat urban area. The estimated cost of the construction work was Rs.5 crore and odd. Several conditions were stipulated for eligibility. One of such conditions was that the bidder must produce certificates showing completion of three or more works of similar nature and of the value of 40% of the tender amount. The last date for submitting the tender form was 7.4.2000 and the tenders were opened on 10.4.2000. Four parties submitted their tenders and offered to carry out the tender work for the following amounts: @@@ L & T Ltd Rs.7.00 Crores --------------------------------------------------------- M/s Shreejikrupa Rs.5.24 crores Buildcon ltd alternate (Respondent No.2) Rs.5.04 Crores --------------------------------------------------------- M/s A.K.Patel Rs.4.92 Crores --------------------------------------------------------- M/s D.P.Vekariya Rs.4.58 Crores (petitioner) --------------------------------------------------------- The SUDA awarded the contract work to the respondent No.2-Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd. for an amount of Rs.5.24 crores. The petitioner was excluded from consideration on the ground that he has not carried out three works of similar nature for the requisite value i.e. 40% of the tender amount offered by him. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had addressed letters on 14.4.2000 and on 2.6.2000 requesting the SUDA not to consider the offer of parties who had not complied with the tender conditions. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the SUDA accepting the offer of respondent No.2 and awarding the contract to respondent No.2 at the aforesaid rate on the ground that the petitioner was eligible and its tender was required to be accepted as the petitioner had quoted the lowest rate.

(3.) In response to the notice, affidavits-in-reply have been filed by V.S.Sheth, Deputy Executive Engineer, SUDA and also by Vijaybhai Zinabhai Patolia, Senior Executive of respondent No.2. The petitioner has also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder to both the affidavits-in-reply. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and this petition is being finally disposed by this judgment.