DROSHING LYNGDOH Vs. SHILLONG CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge the settlement of contract by the respondents 1 and 2 with the respondent No. 5, to collect parking fees at the Cantonment Bazaar Road by work order dtd. 1/4/2021, on the ground that the respondent No. 5 did not satisfy the technical criteria of the Tender conditions.

(2.) The case as projected by the writ petitioner is that, pursuant to a notice inviting tender dtd. 11/1/2021 the writ petitioner along with the respondent No. 5, and another bidder had tendered their bids which were in two parts that is, Technical Bid and Financial Bid. The respondent No. 5 was declared the successful bidder as he put up the highest financial bid at Rs.35,25000.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand only) and the respondent Cantonment Board also deemed that he had the technical expertise and experience to execute the contract on the certificates furnished by the respondent No. 5, in spite of the same being questionable.

(3.) Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award of contract to respondent No. 5 is vitiated, arbitrary and in violation of the Tender conditions, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 5 did not possess the requisite experience to be eligible to bid for the contract. Learned counsel submits that as per the 'General Instructions to Bidders and Tenderers' in the tender document at clause 3.1(6), it has been stipulated that the agency/contractor must have a minimum one year experience in executing/providing similar services/works to Central Governments/ State Governments/Cantonment Boards/Offices etc., for the last financial year upto March, 2020 and that copy of the work orders and documents were to be attached. It is the pointed contention of the learned counsel, that the respondent No. 5 did not meet this requirement and as such, his bid should have been rejected at the technical stage itself. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submits that the acceptance by the respondent Cantonment Board of the experience certificate dtd. 19/10/2020 granted to the respondent No. 5, which was issued by the respondents No. 3 and 4 (Shillong Municipal Board) is erroneous, as on verification before the respondents No. 3 and 4 by way of an RTI application filed by the petitioner, it was revealed that he was not the principal contractor in the said work but perhaps, was just assisting the contractor.