PUNIT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a young man aged 25 years. The writ petition does not give his occupation. He is present today in Court and he has told us that he owns a factory and till 1988 he was undertaking the work of civil contracts. The dispute in this case relates to award of contract for construction of masonry dam of Manikheda, which is a part of Sindh Dam Project. The work has been awarded to 6th respondent. Petitioner has filed this petition praying that the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers may be directed not to enter into contract with 6th respondent or other respondents pursuant to their tenders. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5, 6th respondent has filed separate return.

(2.) THE tender notice was published on 2-5-1992. A copy of that is Annexure P-1. The tender-notice relates to construction of masonry dam as well as the road-side earthen dam. We are not concerned here with the earthen dam. The dispute relates only to the masonry dam. The tender-notice indicates three things, namely, the estimated value of the work was Rs. 8685 lacs and the period of completion of work was indicated as 39 months and mobilisation advance indicated as 10 lacs. By a corrigendum published on 6-7-1992 the. estimated value was reduced to 8530 lacs and period for completion of work was increased to 60 months. 10 tender-forms were purchased and 10 tenders were submitted. 10 persons including respondents Nos. 6 and 7 submitted tenders. Some other tenderers filed Writ Petitions namely, Misc. Petitions Nos. 1430 of 1992 and 1431 of 1992, raising certain grievances. These petitions were dismissed on 8-12-1992. The petitioner filed Misc. Petition No. 153 of 1993 against consideration of the tenders submitted by respondents Nos. 6 and 7, without impleading them. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition observing that bid has to be finalised by a Review Committee and it is open to the petitioner to raise his objections before the Committee. The petitioner submitted his representation to the Committee.

(3.) THE tenders were opened. 8 tenderers were disqualified. Respondents No. 6 and 7 were, declared qualified. Their bids were opened on 10-12-1992. It was found that they offered Rs. 13,669. 60 lacs (59. 70% more than the estimated value) and Rs. 13,625. 77 (59. 19% more than the estimated value) respectively. Chief Engineer recommended these tenders to the Progress Review Committee. The matter ultimately reached the Major Project Control Board. Negotiations followed. Project Review Committee directed negotiations to be conducted with respect to respondents Nos. 6 and 7. Accordingly, they submitted their revised tenders. They made revised offer of Rs. 13,271. 37 lacs (55. 05% above) and Rs. 13,243. 19 (54. 71% above) respectively. The committee which met on 21-7-1993 directed to state and analyse after collecting data of similar works and agreements. On 20th September 1993 the Committee considered the data of Baan Sagar agreement of the year 1980 and the agreement regarding recently sanctioned Jobart Dam Project. It was found that the tender-rates in these cases were 47% above the tender rates of Jobart Dam. The Committee also suggested that mobilisation advance be increased from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 100 lacs to enable rates to be further reduced. Mobilisation advance was accordingly increased and fresh negotiations were conducted with respondents Nos. 6 and 7. 6th respondent made an offer of Rs. 12,793. 60 (49. 46% above ). The 7th respondent declined to make fresh offer. The Review Committee further indicated that meanwhile the date from which escalation is to be reckoned was changed from 9-9-1992 to 25-2-1993. The Review Committee felt that this may persuade further reduction of rates. Ultimately, 6th respondent agreed to take the contract at Rs. 12,281. 80 lacs is 43. 49% above the value shown in the tender notice. This was accepted and the contract was awarded to 6th respondent.