SAPARA DILIP BHARATBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Public Interest Litigation, the writ -petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 17th January 2014 empowering the respondent No.2, Surat Municipal Corporation the Corporation, hereafter. to enter into an agreement with the respondent No. 4, M/s Unique Construction Company, for construction of the Surat BRTS Phase 2, 2/3 lane flyover at Anuvratdwar Junction and Canal Road Junction at Udhana Magdalla road.

(2.) THE grievance of the writ -petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation is that the selected contractor, the respondent No.4 M/s. Unique Construction Company, Surat, should not have been awarded the contract as the selected contractor does not even possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the tender notice.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, while selecting the respondent No.4 as the successful bidder, the Corporation has taken into consideration various works completed by the said respondent as subcontractor whereas according to the terms of the contract, work completed as subcontractor shall not be considered for evaluation. As pointed out in clause 3.1, the applicant should provide evidence that their firm has been actively engaged in the civil works construction of flyovers and bridges during the last 7 years in the role of prime contractor / partner, and, the work completed as subcontractor shall not be considered for evaluation. It is further alleged that the selected contractor has also not complied with the requirements of clause 4(b) of the terms of the tender quoted above, and it will appear from the documents submitted by the selected bidder that they worked mostly as subcontractor and in respect of only one transaction, they acted as a partner of a joint venture, but by virtue of that particular work, the condition specified in clause 4(b) are not complied with.