N LANU Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Y.Longkurner, learned State counsel appearing for respon-dent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Zulu Jamir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as pleaded in the writ petition is that the petitioner, who is a registered Class-l Government Contractor, in response to a Notice Inviting Tender, for short, NIT, dated 19.2.11, issued by the respondent No.3, inviting tenders from Class-l registered Contractor of NPWD/CPWD/MES for "construction of RTO's office cum shopping complex i.e Site Development Retaining Wall at Mokokchung," submitted his tender. 4 other tenderers had also submitted tenders and by work order dated 11.4.11, issued by respondent No.3, the contract was awarded in favour of respondent No. 8. THE respon-dent No. 8 and the petitioner had quoted rate at the rate of 1% below SOR, 2010, but ostensibly, as the minutes of the meeting of the State Level Tender Committee held on 18.03.2011 would reveal, the respondent No. 8 was recommended as he had a better record of similar works done in Nagaland. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent No.8 had not executed similar nature of works in Nagaland.

(3.) MR. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the minutes of the State Level Tender Committee held on 18.3.2011 that tender of the petitioner was valid in all respects and the respondents cannot now take the plea that the petitioner had not fulfilled the criteria as set out in Clause 8 of the NIT and therefore, the bid of the petitioner was invalid. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the abstract of tender details prepared by respondent No.3 to show that all the 5 tenders received in connection with the work in question were valid tenders and therefore, the petitioner has locus standi to question the legality and validity of the work order issued in favour of respondent No.8. The learned counsel has urged that the admitted position is that the respondent No.8 had not executed any similar work in Nagaland and therefore, the decision of the State Level Tender Committee on 18.3.2011 to recom-mend the respondent No.8 only on the ground that the respondent No.8 had a better record of similar works done in Nagaland is vitiated, warranting interference at the hands of this Court, in view of the fact that the petitioner had also quoted the same rate as the resp-ondent No.8.