ODIMAR SYIEMSAD Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, a registered Class-I Contractor under the Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Limited, by way of the instant petition is challenging the issuance of a work order dtd. 15/2/2024, in pursuance to a tender notice dtd. 4/7/2023, in favour of the private respondent No. 9.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation on 4/7/2023, had issued a tender notice for construction of a multi-purpose Indoor Stadium at Nongtrai Village, Mawsynram, East Khasi Hills, for an estimated value of ? 2,87,89,896.00, for bidding through e-tender, on a two-bid system (technical and financial) from registered Class-I Contractors, under the Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Limited. The petitioner along with 4 others (respondents No. 9, 10 and 11) and one Shri. Mostophar Kharkongor, participated in the bid process and on 26/7/2023, when the bids were opened, it was found that respondents No. 9, 10 and 11 and Shri. Mostophar Kharkongor, had quoted identical rates, whereas the bid of the petitioner was fractionally higher. The petitioner thereafter, being surprised that there was no system of technical evaluation, represented before the respondents and on not receiving any positive response, caused him to file further representations and letters, but however, by a work order dtd. 15/2/2024, the contract was awarded to the respondent No. 9, one of the tenderers who had quoted identical rates. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. S.Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I.Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the selection of the respondent No. 9, is vitiated with arbitrariness and malafide, as firstly, the identical quotation of rates by the respondents No. 9, 10 and 11, hints at a cartel being formed by the respondents and secondly, the selection of respondent No. 9, from amongst the 3 bidders who had quoted identical rates, clearly shows nepotism on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as, there is no justification as to how his bid was superior to the rest. It has also been submitted that the validity of 90 days had expired in October 2023, and as such, the award of the work order could not have been issued in February 2024.