GUNANIDHI SAHOO Vs. CHEIF ENGINER BUILDINGS ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ application, alleges that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have arbitrarily and illegally accepted the tender of the opposite party No. 3 for the work to be executed as per the notice inviting tender under Annexure-1 and the petitioner has been illegally eliminated though he was eligible to participate in the tender process.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed in the writ application to quash the decision of the opposite parties 1 and 2 to award the work in favour of opposite party No. 3 for repair, renovation and improvement of Academic Block of Ravenshaw College, Cuttack.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that by the tender notice issued by opposite party No. 2, for execution of the work of repair, renovation and improvement of Academic Block of Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, Special and Super Class Contractors having valid licence to that effect and ownership certificate of possessing required equipments and machineries for the building works, were eligible to participate in the tender. Further, the tenderers were required to furnish their documents in separate sealed covers. The first cover was required to contain all information relating to eligibility in addition to special conditions, if any, clearly mentioning in the said cover as "Cover-I (General Condition)" and the second cover was required to contain price bid in item rate in prescribed schedule, superscribing the said second cover as "Cover-II (Price Bid)". It is the case of the petitioner that as per the tender notice, if a tenderer satisfies the eligibility criteria after opening of the first cover and qualifies to execute the work, the second cover i.e. the price bid of such tenderer will be opened and the date and place of opening of the second cover will be intimated after evaluation of the general condition is completed. The petitioner alleges that the opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the tender of opposite party No. 3 and thereafter his price bid though opposite party No. 3 did not have a valid licence of Special or Super Class Contractor on the date when the Cover-I was opened i.e. on 22-9-2004. As such, it is contended that the opposite party No. 3 had no right to participate in the tender but with a mala fide intention, the authorities entertained the tender of opposite party No. 3 and also subsequently allowed him to participate in the price bid. On 9-11-2004, the opposite party No. 2 sent a letter to the petitioner indicating therein that the petitioner along with opposite party No. 3 and another tenderer have been allowed to participate in the price bid. According to the petitioner, this was done solely to give preference to the opposite party No. 3 though he was not eligible to participate in the tender. It is the further case of the petitioner that the opposite party No. 3 did not submit labour licence nor deposited 40% of the work value for which the tender is sought for and also did not fulfil the other requirements.