PRASSANA BHABASAGAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed by the petitioner who was a participant in the tender proceedings for execution of F.D.R. to Dumduma MIP in Boudh Block, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the work order issued to opposite party No. 2 Saroj Kumar Nayak rejecting tender papers of the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the tender for the work of F.D.R. to Dumduma Minor Irrigation Project in Boudh Block in Boudh district was invited vide notice No. 3567 dated 24.10.2006 by the Executive Engineer, Kandhamal M.I. Division, Phulbani (opp. party No. 1) fixing the date of sale and receipt of tenders from 13.11.2006 to 16.11.2006 up to 5 P.M. in the office of the Assistant Engineer concerned, Executive Engineer concerned and Superintending Engineer, Southern Minor Irrigation Circle, Berhampur respectively. The date of opening of tenders was fixed to 18.11.2006 at 11 A.M. in the office of the Executive Engineer, Kandhamal Minor Irrigation Division, Phulbani (opp. party No. 1) in the presence of the tenderers and their authorized agents. On opening of the tenders on the date and time fixed, it revealed that total six numbers of tenders were received in the tender box from different stations. Out of the said six tenders, two tenders were rejected at the time of opening of tenders on the spot, one of which was that of the petitioner. His tender was rejected on the ground that he had not signed the tender schedule, which was essential as per Rule 12 of General rules and direction for the guidance of the contractors under Orissa Public Works Department F2 contract. The tender of opp. party No. 2, namely Saroj Kumar Nayak, 'C Class Contractor who stood as first lowest tenderer was selected. Though the labour licence, work experience certificate and no relation certificate were required to be submitted by the tenderer along with the tender, the same was not submitted by opposite party No. 2 at the time of submission of tenders but he was granted time to furnish the said certificates on accepting his tender.

(3.) IN any case if the relaxation was given to opp. party No. 2, the petitioner was also entitled to get relaxation to the extent that the petitioner should have been asked to sign the last two pages which were the part of the tender documents submitted by the petitioner and on perusal of the record we found that the petitioner had made his signatures at the places for signatures i.e. above the expression Tenderer' in each page of the tender. However that was the part of the tender form and duly submitted by the petitioner and it has not been disputed by the petitioner that the rates mentioned thereunder was not the rates given by him in the sealed cover. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition directing that the tender submitted by the petitioner may also be considered and a fresh decision may be taken thereafter on the criteria which is to be adopted under the rules by the opp. party No. 1 or any other competent authority independently. However, this will not debar the opp. party No. 1 to invite fresh tender for the project in question.