S.MOHAMED HANIFA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 6/3/2024 on the file of the fifth respondent thereby rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner as 'technically not qualified'.

(2.) The petitioner is a State level Class I Contractor and participated in several tenders called for by the respondents and also other Municipalities in the District of Salem. The petitioner was awarded several works and he completed them successfully. While being so, the second respondent issued tender notification dtd. 2/2/2024 for infrastructural works sanctioned to Municipalities under Kalaignar Nagarpura Mempattu Thittam of the year 2024-2025. The value of the work in a single package is ranging from Rs.19.90 lakhs to Rs.569.00 lakhs. As per the tender notification, the bid documents are available from 8/2/2024 to 23/2/2024 at the official portal of the respondents. As per the notification, the pre-bid meeting will be held on 12/2/2024 at Corporation / Municipal Office. The last date for submission of documents is on 23/2/2024 upto 3.00 p.m. and the date and time of opening of the technical bid is on 23/2/2024 at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner submitted his tender on 23/2/2024 in respect of the work No.1 in the tender notification i.e. providing new black top road for the areas as mentioned in work No.1. The value of the work is Rs.3,26,000.00. The petitioner had paid EMD of Rs.3,26,000.00 along with his bid. However, the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground 'technically not qualified' on 6/3/2024.

(3.) Mr.V.Elangovan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in order to execute the work No.1, the petitioner is fully qualified and also possesses required equipments with good working condition for laying black top road. Without any prior intimation, the petitioner's bid was opened and rejected by the fifth respondent which is contrary to law and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also against the provision of Sec. 8 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1988 and Rules 21 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000. As per the tender notification clause 30.1, the fifth respondent ought to have assigned the reasons for rejecting the bids of the tenderers. The petitioner produced all the documents to prove his technical qualification i.e. possession of required equipments for laying black top road and complied the clause No.4.1.C. The petitioner quoted the rate in his bid as Rs.2,56,89,802.56 , whereas the sixth respondent quoted as Rs.2,66,23,490.05. Even then, the sixth respondent was awarded the contract, whereas the petitioner's bid was rejected with malafide intention.