GAIKHONLUNG PANMEI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two writ petitions, WP ((THELAW)) No.528 of 2013 and WP ((THELAW)) No.437 of 2013 involve common facts and issues, these are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the work order issued in favour of the private respondent No.4 for construction and maintenance of road from T01/BRTF Road to Khamlang under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Ukhrul District mainly on the ground that the bid of the respondent No.4 was liable to be rejected having quoted less than the permissible limit in terms of the Standard Bidding Document governing the tender.

(2.) THE Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency (MSRRDA), the Government agency, responsible for implementation of the schemes under the PMGSY, issued an NIT on 15.10.2012 through e -Procurement from eligible contractors in respect of the 50 (fifty) packages of PMGSY Phase -VIII works including the work package No.MN0952, relating to which the present dispute has arisen. The said package No.MN0952 relates to construction and maintenance of T01/BRTF Road -Khamlang in Kasom Khullen Block in Ukhrul District. In the said NIT dated 15.10.2012, the construction cost was shown to be Rs.266.00 lakhs and the maintenance cost as Rs.22.00 lakhs, thus the total cost of the work was shown to be Rs.288.00 lakhs.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the estimated cost of the work as per the tender notice was Rs.266.00 lakhs and as per the Memorandum dated 21.8.2012 issued by the Chief Engineer, MSRRDA {Annexure -A/2 in WP(C) No.528 of 2013}, the total technical sanctioned amount in the said package is Rs.2,87,97,274.00 (Rs.2,65,97,274.00 + Rs.22,00,000.00), and the price quoted by the respondent No.4 was Rs.2,73,57,285.08 which is more than -5% of the said tendered amount of Rs. 266.00 lakhs or the technical sanctioned amount of Rs.2,87,97,274.00 and as such, was liable to be rejected in terms of Clause 30.2.1 of the Standard Bidding Document. It has been contended that however, the authorities arbitrarily accepted the said bid price of the respondent No.4 and awarded the contract vide letter dated 22.5.2013 (Annexure -A/8 in WP(C) No.528 of 2013 and Annexure -A/5 in WP(C) No.437 of 2013) which is challenged in these writ petitions.