ION EXCHANGE WATERLEAU LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent and its officers from proceeding further with any action or work in regard to the tender bearing no.Bid No.11/2008 dated 12.01.2008 for establishment of Sewarage Treatment Plants at Avaniyapuram and Sakkimangalam at Madurai, without considering the Financial Bid of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, in brief, can be stated like thus:

(3.) MR. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his first limb of argument, has contended that the respondent has rejected the petitioner's Technical Bid without considering the fact that the petitioner's constituent viz., Waterleau Global Technologies, Belgium satisfies all the three eligibility criteria specified in Clauses (a) to (c) in Section 2.2 of the Bid Document. In this context, it is also his contention that without taking note of the said constituent's experience in the field of construction of STP for a value of Rs.30 crores in Nanging, Belgium and Macau, the respondent is estopped from rejecting the petitioner's case on the ground that it has not satisfied the qualification criterion prescribed in Section 2.2(c) of the Bid Document. As regards the main provisions of Section 2.2 of the Bid Document, it the vehement contention of the learned Senior Counsel that nowhere in the said Section, it has been stipulated that similar works have to be executed in a Government sector in India and when that being the position, the experience of the petitioner's constituent in construction of a STP at Nanjing cannot be lost sight of. To put it otherwise, he has argued that inasmuch as the words "in India" are not found in Section 2.2 of the Bid Document, the terms of the tender should be read as they stand without adding or deleting any word/s and as such, the experience of the petitioner's constituent i.e. Waterleau Global Technologies in the Government sector across the world satisfies the provisions contained in Section 2.2 of the Bid Document. In this context, by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 in the case of New Horizons Limited and another Union of India and others, he has argued that the respondent has grossly erred in not taking into account the experience of the petitioner's constituent and considering only the experience of the Joint Venture partner.