TRIVENI PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Water Resources Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh invited tenders for construction of 21. 03 Kms of W. B. M. Internal Roads including 134 number of Hume Pipe Culverts at Model Village New Mirgouti, District Satna. The estimated amount of contract was stated to be Rs. 159. 08 lakhs. The time for completion of work was 12 months which included the rainy season. The earnest money that was determined in the NIT was Rs. 1,19,310/ -. The pre-qualification document for item rate tender Form B was issued by the respondent No. 1. The said document has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. It is put forth that the said document stipulated certain instructions to the tenderers. The eligibility criteria were provided in the pre-qualification document. One of the stipulations in the pre-qualification document postulated that a Joint Venture firm may apply for consideration.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, he and one Kedar Nath Chaturvedi entered into a Joint Venture for carrying out the business of contract in question in the name and style of M/s. Triveni Prasad Mishra, which was for the execution of the work in question and the present petitioner was treated as the lead party having sole right of signing the documents for tender work and execution thereof. The profit and loss were to be shared in the ratio of 60% and 40% respectively. The deed of Joint Venture agreement dated 29-1-2005 is brought on record as Annexure P-2.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted the tender duly filled by him by depositing the requisite earnest money. All the relevant documents of experience were also submitted along with the tender form. It is contended that the petitioner is A-IV Class Contractor having registered himself in the concerned Department of Irrigation and Kedarnath Chaturvedi is a A-III Class Contractor in the Department of Irrigation. They fulfill all the necessary eligibility conditions as are required of a Joint Venture Firm. It is put forth that the tender forms were submitted by various parties. The tender forms were to be opened on 10-2-2005 but the same was not so done for the reasons best known to the respondents. Despite repeated enquiries made by the petitioner, no information was given. However, upon further enquiries, the petitioner was informed that the tenders of two bidders were rejected for the reason that the same were not properly sealed whereas tenders of two other bidders were rejected on the ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per Annexure P-1. It is highlighted that the respondents had already made up their mind to award the contract in question to one M/s S. K. Jain of Bhopal and for that reason, they took recourse to some extraneous pleas in order to oust the petitioner from the field of competition. Non-supply of detailed information by the respondents has been seriously criticised by the petitioner. He submitted a letter dated 23-4-2005 to the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, putting forth the stand the matter should be finalized without changing criteria inasmuch as it was stipulated that a Joint Venture could be constituted by contractor A-IV class and a contractor of A-III Class, but it appears that there has been a change in the tender condition which has been done in an unilateral manner. When the petitioner was apprehensive that such a thing has taken place, the said apprehension was concretized when a letter was issued on 25-4-2005 by the Executive Engineer to the Commissioner, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Ban Sagar Project, Rewa to the Superintending Engineer that upon examination of the documents, he had found that M/s. S. K. Jain of Bhopal be awarded the work in question as he was eligible. Though the said letter clearly stated tenders could be opened on 28-4-2005 at 3. 00 p. m. , it is highlighted that the petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration because of unilateral alteration/change of the condition in the tender which is arbitrary, capricious and invites the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for calling for the original record and to command the respondents 2 and 3 to allow the tender of the petitioner as he had fulfilled the terms and conditions and further adhered strictly to the terms and conditions as had been set forth in Annexure P-l.