SAROJ KUMAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case assails rejection of his technical bid by the opposite party no.3, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Cuttack with respect to construction of model school building at Madhapur under Sukinda Block in the district of Jajpur. Opposite party no. 5 is the successful bidder, in whose favour contract has been awarded.

(2.) OPPOSITE party no.3 invited tender in the aforesaid work as per tender call notice and the technical bid was opened on 20.03.2012. The finance bid was opened on 26.03.2012. The petitioner as well as the opposite party no.5 submitted the technical bid and the finance bid online. However, his technical bid was rejected and it is alleged that he is not qualified to bid for the aforesaid work. The petitioner further submits that the opposite party no.5, which is a partnership firm, has neither any experience nor any turn over has been awarded with the work. It is submitted that the opposite party no.5 has relied upon the work executed by one Managing Partner in his individual capacity, as such the opposite party no.5 is not eligible to submit his technical bid. Therefore, the petitioner prays to award the technical bid in his favour and to quash the award of work in favour of opposite party no.5.

(3.) THE specific case of the opposite party no.5 is that it is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. Ramesh Das, one of the partners of the firm, was a 'B Class Contractor. He has applied to the office of the Engineer -in -Chief, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for upgrading from 'B Class to 'A Class Contractor, which was accepted after following due procedure laid down under the O.P.W.D. Code and declared him as 'A Class Contractor. Sri Das forming a partnership deed applied to the Government for registration under the Orissa State, P.W.D. Contractor Rule, after consideration and taking into account past performance of Ramesh Das, the partnership firm named M/s. Maa Nabadurga Construction was granted 'A Class License vide Regd. No.8695 in the year 2011 -12. It is therefore contended that the opposite party no.5 has the requisite qualification/experience to bid in the auction and it is further contended that the no illegality has been committed by the opposite parties 1 to 4 in awarding the contract in his favour.