MEGA ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding, writ petitioners' firm, inter alia, challenges the notice of acceptance, dated 19.09.2011, issued by the Executive Engineer (Elect) Roing Electrical Division in favour of the respondent No. 5 (M/s. Krishna Constructions) favoring him with the work of construction of C/O 33 KV line from Aholi to Dambuk i/c 2 Nos. across the river Sissiri (Package No. 2) NLCPR/33 KV IMEBO-DMK/RED/02. The facts, necessary for disposal of this present writ proceedings, in short, are that the Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'NIT'), dated 08.07.2011, issued by the Executive Engineer (Elect) Roing Electrical Division, Department of Power for construction of 33 KV line from Mebo to Aholi i/c 2 Nos. Tower across the river Byathbo Korong (hereinafter referred to as package No. 1) (ii) for construction of 33 KV line from Aholi to Dambuk i/c 2 Nos. across the river Sissiri (hereinafter referred to as package No. 2) and (iii) for construction of 33 KV sub-station Bay i/c 1000 KVA, 33/11 LV power transformer, 33 KV multi use switching unit for sectionisation at Dambuk, 11 KV uniploarisation switching unit at Dambuk for control panel & 33 KV auto reclosure unit at Mebo (hereinafter referred to as package No. 3). The estimated values of the work at package No. 1, 2 & 3 were quoted at Rs. 220.68 lakhs, 167.96 lakhs and 158.93 lakhs respectively.

(2.) The firm of the petitioners is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of construction and maintenance of all types of high voltage transmission line and sub-station in the North Eastern States. The petitioners firm which has expertise and experience in the field aforesaid along with others submitted bid vying for three packages of work, aforesaid. It was stated in the NIT that only those bidders who would qualify in technical bid would be invited for taking part in the price bid.

(3.) Accordingly, petitioners and three others qualified in technical bid for which all those four bidders were called by the Executive Engineer (Elect) Roing Electrical Division (respondent No. 4) to remain present in his Office on 30.08.2011 so that the price bid, offered by them, could be opened in their presence. Accordingly, on 30.08.2011 the price bids were opened in presence of the bidders and the prices, quoted by petitioners in respect of all three packages, were found to be the lowest of all the bids.