CMEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CMEC Consulting Engineers-petitioner in this writ application has challenged the purported rejection of their 'technical bid' and the consequent non-opening of their 'price bid' by the Regional Officer and Superintending Engineer-opposite party No.2 as well as issue of work order in favour of S.M. Consultant-opposite party No.3.

(2.) The Regional Officer and Superintending Engineer-opposite party No.2 issued an advertisement inviting tenders (NIT No.RO/BBSR/ 01/2005-06) and published the same in daily. The Samaj' dated 21.1.2006 (Annexure-1) for the work "Collection and compilation of Traffic Data at 91 Nos. Count Stations on National Highways in the State of Orissa". Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, bidders were called upon to submit applications for issue of tender documents and the aid application was required to be accompanied with attested copies of brief of experience of similar works, Income Tax Clearance Certificate, VAT Clearance Certificate and a Demand Draft for Rs.500/-. It is submitted that the petitioner made an application for issue of tender documents along with necessary documents as required under the tender notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued with necessary tender documents which were duly filled in and submitted in two covers, i.e., Cover No.1 (Technical Bid) and Cover No.II (Price Bid) within the time stipulated, i.e., by 3.00 on 28.1.2006.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that rejection of the petitioner's 'technical bid' purportedly on the ground of lack of necessary experience is wholly erroneous, inasmuch as Opp.Party No.2 being satisfied that the petitioner possessed necessary working experience, issued tender documents to it. Therefore, in terms of the said advertisement, satisfaction of the authority concerned on the experience of the intended bidder being a condition precedent for issuance of the tender documents, rejection of the petitioner's 'technical bid' on the ground of lack of experience, was wholly illegal.