G. M. LANONG Vs. MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to a tender notice, dated 1.3.2006, floated by the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer (GT), Meghalaya State Electricity Board, Lumjingshai, Shillong, Meghalaya State Electricity Board (in short, 'MeSEB'), inviting sealed bids from reputed EHV line construction contractors/Joint Venture Firms/Consortium of two or more Firms as partners for the Construction of 132KV Double Circuit Transmission Line on 220KV Towers from Myntdu Leshka Stage IHEP to the 132 KV sub station at Khliehriat, Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya, India, the petitioner, a contractor carrying out the contract works of high voltage electricity transmission lines, as a joint venture partner, submitted its bids for allotment of the work. The respondent No. 4,which is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, also participated in the tender process, the tender process consisting of two-bid system, namely, techno-commercial bid and financial bid. No other person participated in the said tender process seeking allotment of the contract works. The petitioner claims that having learnt that the financial bid of the respondent No. 4 (who is hereinafter referred to as 'the private respondent) had been opened, on 13.11.2006, the petitioner sent a letter, on 15.11.2006, addressed to the respondent No. 2, namely, chief Engineer, MeSEB, stating to the effect, inter alia, that the petitioner had come to know that the financial bid of the private respondent had been opened on 13.11.2006, but the petitioner's financial bid had not been opened, though the petitioner's bid fulfilled all the technical criteria of eligibility. The petitioner further requested the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner's financial bid may be opened and that no decision may be taken on the offer of the private respondent alone. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter, dated 01.12.2006, from respondent No. 3, namely, Superintending Engineer (G.T.), MeSEB, informing the petitioner that the techno-commercial bid of the petitioner was found to have not fulfilled the criteria for consideration of the price bid. The petitioner was, however, requested to submit, for placement in the next meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee, certain papers/documents for consideration of the petitioner's technical bid, the documents, so sought for, being:

(2.) By its letter, dated 11.12.2006, the petitioner furnished all the requisite particulars as had been asked for by the letter, dated 01.12.2006. While so furnishing the requisite particulars by its letter, dated 01.12.2006, the petitioner also expressed its concern that the petitioner had been asked to provide certain materials after a lapse of about seven months since the date of opening of the techno-commercial bid, particularly, when the petitioner had not been given any information, during the said period of more then six months, about the fate of its tender, and reiterated its request for opening of its financial bid. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, namely, Superintending Engineer (GT), MeSEB, issued a letter, dated 23.03.2007, addressed to both the petitioner as well as the private respondent, informing them that due to unavoidable circumstances and in accordance with clause (10) of the General Conditions of Contract, the tender process had been cancelled and that price bid of both the tenderers, i.e., the petitioner well as the private respondent, and the earnest money, deposited by each one of them, amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- each, were being returned to them.

(3.) With the allegation that the respondent No. 1. having cancelled the said tender process, has issued work order for the same work to respondent No. 4 in order to make illegal gain and to deprive the petitioner of its right to secure the work, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 19(T) 2007 in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, with the prayer, inter alia, to declare the opening of the tender process as illegal, null and void with further declaration that the allotment of the work to the respondent No. 4 was void and illegal. In the said suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for an order of injunction prohibiting and restraining the respondent No. 4 from carrying out the work of construction of 132 KV double circuit transmission line on 220 KV tower rom Myntdu Leshka Stage-1 HEP to the 132 KV Sub-station at Khichriat, Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. This application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 46(T)/2007. By order, dated 30.05.2007, the learned trial Court restrained respondent No. 4 from carrying out the construction work of 132 KV double circuit transmission line on 220 KV tower from Myntdu-Leshka Stage I HEP to the 132 KV Sub-station at Khliehriat, Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya.