NATIONAL MINING COMPANY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitioners are challenging the second tender notice (NIT) dated 22.8.2011 floated by the respondent No.5 on the same grounds and on same facts. It may also be mentioned herein that so far there is no clash of interest between the petitioners and both of them have filed the writ petitions for setting aside and quashing the aforesaid NIT and direct to the respondent No.5 to settle the work as per first NIT dated 4.4.2011. Hence, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) Heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned Sr. counsel and Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners respectively. The respondents were represented by Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Coal India Limited. I have also perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed therewith.

(3.) The facts in a narrow compass are that the Chief General Manager, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited, floated a tender on 4.4.2011 for Hiring of HEMM for Production of Carbonaceous Shale (CS) & removal of Hard Shale (HS) in accordance with requirement of safety regulations and transportation of coal to the railway sidings, as per schedule . In the aforesaid NIT three locations namely, Tirap (East), Tikak (OCM) and Ledo (OCP) were included. Against the said NIT five tenders were received by the respondents. However, one bid was disqualified. Hence, four bidders remained in the fray for three locations. The respondents, as stated to the court by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, have finalized to allot the works of Tikak( OCM) and Ledo (OCP) to the remaining two tenderers. For the location of Tirap (East), both the writ petitioners were the lowest bidders, having quoted one and the same rate. Because of quoting the same rate by two bidders, it was considered to be cartel formation by the tenderers to jeopardise the contract work. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Independent External Monitors (IEM) and after taking their views, the respondents decided to re-tender the work of Tirap (East) only. Consequently, the second NIT was issued, which is in question in the present writ petitions.