DILWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondent authorities in the Water Resources Department, Government of Assam and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4, Nurul Islam Laskar.

(2.) A notice for bid dated 27.04.2020 (in short NIB) was issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Assam, amongst others, for the work related to 'immediate measures to dyke along L/B of Katakhal from Gaglacherra to Nutan Bazar for restoration of breach like damages occurred at Bamunlekai for 2019-2020 (under SDRF)'. The approximate cost of work is stated in the NIB to be Rs.150.00 lacs. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent No.4 along with other bidders have submitted their bids. The last date of submission of this bids is stated to be 06.05.2020. As per the minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 18.06.2020, the technical bid of the writ petitioner and the respondent No.4 were found to be acceptable. While the technical bids of two other tenderers Samsul Haque Laskar and M/s. A.B Construction (A.B.C) were found to be technically not valid. The NIB apparently invited bids in a two bid system i.e., the technical bid and the financial bid. As per the tendering summary report prepared by the Bid Evaluation Committee, the technical evaluation summary details were uploaded in the e-procurement system of the Government of Assam on 18.06.2020 at 1.53 PM and the bid opening summary was uploaded on 28.07.2020 at 2.40 PM. It is stated that the bid offered by the writ petitioner was Rs.1,49,92,737.20/-, whereas the bid offered by the respondent No.4 was Rs.1,23,06,365.18/-. For the purpose of adjudicating the dispute raised in the writ petition, we are not concerned with the financial bids offered by the respective tenderers. The acceptance of the technical bid of the respondent No.4 is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioner by referring to clause (j) of the ITB provided as an appendix/checklist to the bid document. Clause (j) thereof is extracted as below:

(3.) Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a mandatory requirement of the bidders to submit a completion certificate or an up-to-date progress of all the works allotted to the bidder during the preceding three financial years prior to the financial year on which the tender was called for. It is further contended that clause (j) requires the aforementioned certificate to be given as per the prescribed format contained in the bid document having the official reference issue number and the date and round seal of the Executive Engineer in charge of the work which the bidder may have performed. Accordingly Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the writ petitioner refers to the prescribed bid format provided in the bid document which is extracted as below: