GURUDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to accept the technical and financial bids ofthe petitioner and select him to execute the work for Construction of Bridge over Bhangamunda Nallah at 6 th Km on Tundla to Karlamunda Road in Kalahandi District. Further prayer of the petitioner is to declare the action of opposite parties in selecting Opposite Party No.5 - Sri Sachin Agrawal to execute the work in question as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the detailed tender call notice.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nutshell is that he is a Special Class Contractor and has undertaken many construction works in different government and public sector undertakings and has completed the same without any allegation whatsoever by the authorities who had issued the work order in his favour. Opposite party No.3 - Superintending Engineer, Jeypore (R and B) Circle, Jeypore invited sealed bids from the eligible contractors registered with the Government and contractors of equivalent grade/class registered with Central Government/ MES/Railways having registration for execution of Civil Works in prescribed form for the work in question for the year 2011 -12 at an approximate estimated cost of Rs.2,89,42,704/ -. The date of sale and receipt of bid was from 11 hours of 12.09.2011 to 16 hours of 21.09.2011. Pursuant to said tender call notice, bids were received within the stipulated period. During scrutiny, it was found that four bidders were disqualified for non -submission of required documents as would be evident from the agenda note prepared by the Assistant to Chief Engineer (Roads) and five bids were treated as valid. From the agenda, it is further evident that the petitioner stood second highest bidder having offered Rs.2,60,19,491/ - whereas the first lowest bidder has offered Rs.2,48,32,840/ -. Petitioner's case is that even though opposite party No.5 failed to produce a note of experience regarding construction of bridge works, the opposite parties have illegally selected him and are going to issue work order in his favour. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) MR .Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on paragraph 13 (i) of tender call notice submitted that each bidder has to submit along with bid a note regarding his experience on construction of Bridge Works. Sub -para (ii) of paragraph 13 further provides that the prospective applicant should furnish list of similar nature of work satisfactorily completed in Schedule -D1 and list of works in progress under Schedule -D2 in its name. Along with tender documents, the petitioner submitted the required documents showing his performance in the field of construction of bridge on different sites as would be evident from the performance reports issued in form -G by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bhawanipatna. From the performance report granted by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bhawanipatna in favour of the first lowest bidder, i.e., opposite party No.5 -Sri Sachin Agrawal, it is evident that said Agrawal has not executed any construction of bridge work on any occasion. He does not satisfy the terms and conditions of the tender call notice which provides that the bidder has to submit along with bid a note regarding his experience on construction of bridge works.