ABC COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to award the tender in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petitioner happens to be a partnership firm under the name and style of 'M/s. ABC Company' having its registration certificate with the A & N Command and Andaman Public Works Department as also having experience in house keeping and conservancy services. THE petitioner also holds the CST number issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. THE respondent authorities initially published a tender notice on 2nd November, 2009 for providing unskilled manpower for external conservancy services to Air Force Station, Car Nicobar and the petitioner having all qualifications participated in the said tender, but the said tender was retendered on 4th January, 2010 and the petitioner accordingly participated in the said tender. But, unfortunately the respondent authorities for some undisclosed reasons cancelled both the tenders dated 2nd November, 2009 and 4th January, 2010 by notification dated 28th January, 2010. THEreafter, on 14th February, 2010 the respondent authorities again published a fresh tender for the same work and the petitioner like previous occasions participated in the said tender also. When the tender was opened, it was found that only two firms i.e. the petitioner and another firm, namely, M/s. G. Satyanarayan participated in the said tender process.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities while arguing the case drew this Court's pointed attention to the said tender documents dated 2nd March, 2010 submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner as also some other documents including the open tender enquiry as well as the findings (Annexure R-8) in a prescribed form dated 04.3.2010 and emphatically urged that the writ petitioner having failed to comply with the requirements indicated in technical bid as also financial bid as embodied in the tender form has lost its entitlement to the work order although its bid amount was Rs.95,093/- per month i.e. lower than the bid amount of M/s. G. Satyanarayan, MES Contractor, Car Nicobar. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities strenuously argued and submitted that due to discrepancies detected in the matter of furnishing particulars as also for non-fulfillment of the conditions of the tender form for obtaining work order the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Evidently, the tender work has not yet been provided to the private respondent No.5 (M/s. G. Satyanarayan) or to any other firm.