D R ASSOCIATES Vs. GENERAL MANAGER EAST COAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite parties to issue work order in respect of the work indicated in Annexure 1 in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts as delineated in the writ application tend to reveal the following :

(3.) SO , according to the Opp. Parties, the petitioner's firm did not possess the requisite experience to be eligible to participate in the aforesaid tender. Fact remains that the petitioner is a partnership firm running in the name and style of 'M/s D.R. Associates' having 4 partners, namely; Sri Dinesh Singh, Sri Rajesh Singh, Smt. Bhaswati Nayak and Smt. Jolly Patnaik and by virtue of a deed of partnership, dated 10.4.2003, copy of which is annexure 2, the said partnership firm was reconstituted and one Sanatan Rout was admitted to the partnership firm on and from 10th April, 2003 having a share of 10% to the profit and loss of the said firm. The document of reconstitution of the firm is an unregistered deed of partnership. As it appears, the newly added partner, namely, Sanatan Rout, was initially executing the contract works in his individual capacity being the proprietor of a firm and amongst the partners of the petitioner firm so reconstituted, he is the only partner, who has the requisite experience as per the tender notice, as his individual turn over was more than the amount required under the tender notice during the period from April, 2002 to 31st July, 2003. As per the Opp. Parties, the credentials and past experience of an individual partner, namely, S. Rout, cannot be treated as the experience of the partnership firm of the petitioner,and therefore, the petitioner firm is not at all eligible to participatein the tender as they do not have the turn over of value more thanthe amount required under the tender. The sum and substance ofthe argument of the Opp. Parties is that the experience acquiredand the turn over of work done by Sanatan Rout in his individualcapacity prior to 10.4.2003 i.e. the date on which Sanatan Routentered as a partner of the D. R. Associates, cannot be treated tobe the experience of the partnership firm and treated to be theturn over of the partnership firm, So the question falls for considerationis whether the turn over of work done by Sri Sanatan Rout can becredited to the partnership firm of the petitioner for the purpose oftreating it to be the turn over of the partnership. According to thelearned counsel for the Opp. Parties, the deed of reconstitutingthe partnership was executed on 10.4.2003, just little more thanone month before the tender notice was published, for the purposeof participating in the tender.