DHARANI GEOTECH ENGINEERS Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners herein, are aggrieved with the disqualification from the tender bidding process under the Request for Bids (RFB) No. R&I /DAMS/PK-I/DRIP-II/2022-23 dtd. 6/4/2022 for the works of Rehabilitation and Improvement of Umiam StageI, Umiam - Umtru Stage - III, Umiam - Umtru Stage - IV Dams in RiBhoi District and Myntdu Leshka Stage-I Dam in West Jaintia Hills District of Meghalaya, under DRIP-II (Package - I) by virtue of the notice notification being No. CE/C/HP&HC/DRIP-II/T98(C)/2022/188 dtd. 20/10/2022 issued by the Chief Engineer (C), Hydro Planning & Hydro Construction, Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Limited, Shillong, being the Respondent No. 3. The challenge to disqualification is on the ground that the writ petitioner had been disqualified from the bidding, without any application of mind and in an arbitrary manner.

(2.) The brief background facts are that, pursuant to a notice inviting tender dtd. 5/4/2022, and Request for Bids (RFB) dtd. 6/4/2022, the writ petitioners had submitted their bid, which included, response to queries, bid capacity details, and other materials to substantiate the fact that, requisite amount of drilling work, had earlier been executed by the writ petitioner No. 1, which made the writ petitioners technically qualified and eligible. However, by letter dtd. 10/10/2022, which is impugned herein, the petitioners had been informed that, their technical bid had been found to be non-responsive and technically not qualified, which has occasioned the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. K. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners in his submissions, had at the initial stage, when the matter was taken up, stressed on the point that, there was no comprehensible reason for the technical bid of the petitioners to be rejected, inasmuch as, enough material in the form of the contracts/work earlier executed by the writ petitioner No. 1, had been furnished. In this context, the learned counsel had taken the Court, through the varied documents to substantiate the contention, as to the petitioners, meeting the qualifying criteria. This Court, then by order dtd. 10/11/2022, on the prayer of the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, fixed the matter today, while granting a limited status quo till the next date, on the settlement of the contract. The respondents were also allowed to bring on record documents in support of their case.