UNITED FRIENDS AND BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where 'kettle is trying to call the pot black', inasmuch as the petitioner, a Tenderer though did not fulfil all the Tender conditions and was not otherwise eligible for being considered to be awarded the work seeks to challenge the acceptance of the Tender of opposite party No. 4.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts are as follows : In response to a Tender Call Notice published in the Daily 'Samaj' dated 15.9.2002 by the Government of Orissa in the Cooperation Department for finalisation of builders/ developers for Joint Venture Project of construction of commercial/official/residential complex over the vacant leasehold land, many applicants submitted their tenders. The detailed particulars were provided in the Tender Call Notice which has been filed as Annexure R/1. The petitioner's grievance is limited to the item of work at serial number 2 mentioned in the Tender Call Notice which is quoted hereinbelow: '2. Bhubaneswar Plot No. D -l and 14,000 Lease -hold landCoop. Super Bazar B -4, Sahidnagar, sqft. leased out to Ltd. D -l B -4, Bhubaneswar BCSB Ltd. forSahidnagar, commercialBhubaneswar purpose for 90years.' Condition Nos. 4 and 9 stipulated in the said Tender Call Notice read as follows: '4. Only development and builders of repute having experience in execution of commercial/office/housing complexes at estimated cost of not less than 2 to 4 crores of rupees may furnish tenders along with full documented details of their past experience, etc. Prospective tenderers may include Central or State Govt. Public Sector Undertaking in building and construction line also. 9. The tender shall be accompanied by:(a) Earnest money/security deposit of Rs. 50,000,00 in the form of Bank Drafts drawn in favour of the concerned Society. (b) Solvency Certificates or Bank Guarantee to the extent of at least fifty lakhs, renewable from time -to -time. Tenders not so accompanied shall be rejected.' According to the petitioner, he submitted his tender for the work more fully described in item No. 2 of the Tender Call Notice on 8.10.2002 and also submitted a letter undertaking to submit the Bank Guarantee. The petitioner alleges that his tender was not considered and the work was allotted to opposite party No. 4.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No. 4 specifically stating that the petitioner had furnished Rs. 50,000,00 as earnest money and an undertaking to furnish solvency certificate at a later date, while opposite party No. 4 had deposited earnest money of Rs. 50,000,00 and had furnished solvency certificate of Rs. 15 crores as Bank Guarantee from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. It has been averred that the Evaluation Committee had taken all these factors into consideration.