RAREFIELD ENGINEERING PVT LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHENNAI Fishing Harbour Management Committee, CHENNAI Port Trust (2nd respondent herein) invited sealed tenders under two cover system for Licensing of the Slipway Complex for Operation and Maintenance at CHENNAI Fishing Harbour, Royapuram, CHENNAI on annual license basis from the firms and companies having a minimum experience of three years in building/repairing the boats, trawlers, tugs, naval/coast guard and other vessels or operating such type of slipway or dry docks and having DG Shipping Registration Certificate and average annual turnover of not less than Rs.3.00 crores in the last three years. The Firms/Companies can also quote for this tender as "Joint Venture". Initially, the license period will be for 7 years and it is extendable for another 3 years on satisfactory performance. The departmental minimum reserve price (license fee) as mentioned in the Tender Notification is Rs.7.62 lakhs + service tax per month. The license fee shall be payable every month. The last date for submission of tenders was 18.03.2008. The completed tenders would be opened on the same day.

(2.) IN pursuance of the same, the petitioner, 3rd respondent and yet another firm namely, M/s.KEI-RSOS Maritime Limited,Thirukadayur, Nagapattinam District submitted sealed tenders in time. The Technical Bids were opened on 18.03.2008 and the documents produced by the tenderers were scrutinised by the Superintending Engineer (P&D). He prepared an evaluation statement along with note to the tender committee. The documents were placed before the Tender Committee. The committee, in its meeting held on 11.04.2008, pre-qualified two bidders viz., the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 3rd bidder viz., M/s.KEI-RSOS Maritime Limited,Thirukadayur, Nagapattinam District had not produced necessary certificate showing the experience. Subsequently, necessary documents were submitted by the said firm. Thereafter, in the Tender Committee meeting held on 30.06.2008, the Committee recommended that all the 3 bidders viz., the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and M/s.KEI-RSOS Maritime Limited,Thirukadayur, Nagapattinam District may be considered for pre-qualification for licensing. The same was approved by the Chairman of Chennai Port Trust. IN the mean while, the petitioner had submitted two written objections regarding the eligibility of the 3rd respondent. But, they were not considered.

(3.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised in the writ petition , the crux of the contentions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner can be summarised as follows: (i) The 3rd respondent was not technically qualified in as much as the 3rd respondent did not have the required experience as well as D.G.Shipping Registration certificate as per the general conditions of tender and so the technical bid submitted by the 3rd respondent ought to have been rejected.(ii) The objections raised by the petitioner in respect of technical qualification of the 3rd respondent put in writing on two occasions were not at all considered by the respondents 1 and 2. (iii) In the price bid, a tenderer, as per the conditions, was required to mention the license fee which includes service tax also. (iv) The petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs.11,11,000/- per month + service tax where as the 3rd respondent had quoted Rs.12,40,000/- which includes service tax. If service tax as on the crucial date is calculated, it works out to Rs.1,37,319/- thereby making the bid of the petitioner at RS.12,48,319/- whereas the license fee quoted by the 3rd respondent including service tax was only Rs.12,40,000/- The price quoted by M/s.KEI-RSOS Maritime Limited, Thirukadayur, Nagapattinam District was Rs.11,22,500/-inclusive of service tax as claimed by the said firm itself. Comparatively, since the petitioner was the highest bidder, the contract should have been awarded only in favour of the petitioner.(iv) The whole exercise was done by the respondent only to favour the 3rd respondent and that is the reason why the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the Technical Qualification of the 3rd respondent were not considered and in an arbitrary manner the technical qualification of the 3rd respondent was accepted and again, though the petitioner was the highest bidder, in an arbitrary manner, the 3rd respondent was declared as the highest bidder and contract was awarded in his favour. Thus, the award of contract in favour of the third respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. (v) THOUGH already the contract has been awarded in favour of the 3rd respondent, since it is a service contract for a period of 7 years and extendable for another 3 years, the writ petition has not become infructuous.