T K ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES Vs. TAMA FABRICATION WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 13.8.09 passed in WP(C) No. 116 (AP) of 2009 is in challenge in this writ appeal.

(2.) The Deputy Director, Urban Development Housing, Pasighat Division, Pasighat issued notice inviting item rate bid (for short 'NIB') dated 11.9.08 for the execution of the work, namely, "Improvement of road Network" at Pasighat at an estimated value of Rs. 495.63 lakhs. Following the said issuance of NIB, a corrigendum dated 14.9.08 was issued extending the last date of submission of tender upto 4.10.08. In response to the said NIB, the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 and others participated by submitting their tenders. The tender process involved two bid systems i.e. 'Technical Bid" and "Financial Bid". Those who qualified in the technical bid, were entitled to participate in the "Financial Bid". The Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 and one M/s Renija Enterprise were evaluated as technically responsive. Therefore, as per terms of the NIB, the said tenderers were allowed to participate in the financial bid. A Screening Committee (internal committee) was constituted, vide order dated 10.9.08 for evaluation of the comparative merit of the bids. Accordingly, the committee aforesaid scrutinized the bids. The bid of the M/s Renija Enterprise was rejected on the ground that the bid value of Rs. 368.91 lakh quoted by the said firm was abnormally low and unworkable. The bid value quoted by the Appellant was Rs. 450.72 lakhs while the bid value quoted by Respondent No. 1 was Rs. 473.60 lakhs. Though the bid value quoted by the Appellant was lowest, the Screening Committee, after making calculations/correction with regard to certain items, quoted by the Appellant, found some discrepancies in respect of the total amount and as such, the bid value, quoted by the Appellant, on being corrected got enhanced to Rs. 763.91 lakh. In view of such correction/calculation, the Respondent No. 1 became the lowest bidder. Accordingly, the Screening Committee observed that the amount quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication Works i.e. the writ Petitioner in WP(C) No. 116 (AP) of 2009 (Respondent No. 1 in this appeal) was found to be 4.40% below the estimated cost, while the total bid value of the Appellant i.e. M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises stood at Rs. 54.10% above the estimated cost. Therefore, the Screening Committee recommended the rate quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, the Chief Engineer i.e. Respondent No. 4 refused to accept the said recommendation of the Screening Committee and by his note dated 27.2.09 made recommendation in favour of the Appellant and sought approval of the competent authority for accepting the tender of the Appellants on the grounds (i) that the committee constituted on 10.9.08 was cancelled w.e.f. 2.2.09 and the committee being an internal committee, its purpose was to evaluate the tender and to place the merit and demerit before the competent authority for further decision and not to compel the authority to accept the recommendations; (ii) that M/s T. K. Enterprise, though quoted the bid value at Rs. 450.72 lakh, the said amount got enhanced to Rs. 763.90 lakh due to correction made by the committee; (iii) that M/s T. K. Enterprise agreed to execute the work within the quoted rate for which, a chance should be given to the said firm; (iv) that the allotment of the work to M/s T. K. Enterprise would result in saving of Rs. 22.88 lakhs, whereas allotment of the work to M/s. Tama Fabrication Works (Respondent No. 1) would cost the exchequer Rs. 22.88 lakhs more. With the above observations, the Respondent No. 4 placed the matter before the Secretary (UD) and accordingly, the proposal being approved, the contract work was awarded to the Appellant.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said allotment on the basis of the above recommendation, alleging illegality, biasness, nepotism and partiality against the Respondent No. 4, the Respondent No. 1 as writ Petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking interference of the Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Appellant as Respondent No. 6 contested the claim, by filing an affidavit in opposition, wherein it was averred that the committee members had illegally tampered certain figures in me final bid of the Respondent No. 6 and that the bid value was raised to Rs. 763.91 lakhs against the quoted bid value of Rs. 450.72 lakhs.