MADHU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. NATIONAL ALLUMINIUM COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the action of opp. parties 2 to 4 in rejecting its tender at the techno-commercial bid stage and thereby refusing to open the price bid of the petitioner along with second part of the bidding of other participants.

(2.) The petitioner's case briefly stated is that it is a proprietory concern undertaking Civil, Mechanical contract work. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender (hereinafter called "NIT") dated 29-6-2000 (Annexure-4), the petitioner having experience of contracts over Rs.15 lakhs in single tender earlier and financially sound and suitable to undertake the work, filed his tender along with earnest money deposit, documents showing income-tax clearance, sales-tax clearance, licence of electrical contractor experience certificate of having undertaken the type of work required and copies of the work orders. Several others also filed their tender papers. The petitioner alleges that the tenders filed by the others, were defective in some way or other and he has furnished details of the name of the parties and defects of each one of them in a tabular form.

(3.) It is asserted by the petitioner that the tender papers were to be submitted in two parties, first part relates to techno-commercial bid and the second part is the price bid and therefore only after acceptance of the techno-commercial bid, if a tenderer qualifies, the second commercial bid, i.e. the price bid is to be opened. The first part of the bid of the tenders were opened even though some of them were incomplete tender documents, which were to be rejected in limini and letters were given to the other participants to comply with the defects whereas the petitioner's bid was rejected. It is alleged that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was an outcome of the grudge, because the petitioner had filed a writ application challenging the opp. party's action in another tender. According to the petitioner, the notice issued to the tenders to rectify the defect is a clear breach of condition in the notice itself and inasmuch as the rejection of the petitioner's techno-commercial bid is illegal and arbitrary, since it had the required eligibility in terms of the NIT.