SP LAKSHMANAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE Government of India had received a loan from the international Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter called ' the Bank ) towards the cost of upgradation of government roads and for meeting the cost of Enhanced Periodical maintenance. THE first respondent invited bids enhanced periodical maintenance of Government roads on 5. 12. 2003. Bid was open to all bidders from eligible source country as defined in the guidelines, bidders from India registered with Tamil Nadu or other State Governm ents were also eligible to participate in the bid. Bids were invited for eight contracts MC-1 to MC-8. This writ petition is with regard to MC-5 which relates to roads in Tiruchy and thanjavur District.

(3.) MR. A. L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that there is no illegality in the award in favour of the fifth respondent. The criteria for deciding whether a bid is substantially responsive does not include the subcontracting component. If the fifth respondent is excluded, then there would be no substantially responsive bids since the technical evaluation committee found that the petitioner is qualified only for the award of one contract and accordingly, he has been awarded MC-7. Since the petitioner is not a person qualified to be awarded MC-5, he cannot be a person aggrieved. The learned additional Advocate General also submitted that the funds have come from the world Bank and the project has to be completed in 12 months and any delay in the completion of the contract will visit the State Government with heavy financial burden, besides injuring public interest and therefore, the disappointment of one private par ty cannot outweigh the possible financial loss to the State or injury to public interest. It was further submitted that the respondents had no choice but to ignore the subcontracting component in the fifth respondent's bid because apart from giving the value of the subcontracting component, no further details were given and there was no way of ascertaining the split up works. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the records were produced before the learned Judge before the interim order was pa ssed. It was found that there was no MOU as alleged in the writ affidavit. Therefore, a person who had come to Court with a false case intending to frustrate a public project deserves no indulgence from this Court.