TECHNO COMPACT BUILDERS Vs. NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Writ petitions by and between the same parties pertaining to the impugned tender processes have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The petitioner which is a duly constituted registered proprietorship firm having its office at Guwahati and represented by sole proprietor has filed the first Writ Petition being WP(C)No. 346/2013 challenging the order of acceptance issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 in connection with the "work for Supply, installation and commissioning of SDH Add/Drop MUX(STM-1/STM-4)" and other associated equipments for OFC communication in various section including provision of OFC(24 fibre) and 6 Quad cable involving trenching, laying, jointing and their termination in section Golakgangj-Bilasipara (New Line) under NMX-JPZ project of APDJ Divn. of N.F. Railway" in pursuance of tender processes convened vide Tender No. DY. CSTE/Con/NJP/2012/03/GKJ-Bilasipara/OFC-SYS pertaining to Tender Notice No. S&T/CON/2012/03.

(2.) In the second Writ petition being WP(C) No. 356/2013 the challenge made is to set aside and quash the letter of acceptance issued in favour of respondent No. 4 in connection with the work for "Supply, installation and commissioning of SDH Add/Drop MUX(STM-1/STM-4) and other associated equipments for OFC communication in various section including provision of OFC(24 fibre) and 6 Quad cable involving trenching, laying, jointing and their termination in section Golakgangj-Bilasipara (New Line) under NMX-JPZ project of APDJ Divn. Of N.F. Railway" in pursuance of tender processes convened vide Tender No. DY. CSTE/Con/NJP/2012/03/GKJ- Bilasipara/OFC-SYS pertaining to Tender Notice No. S&T/CON/2012/03.

(3.) In both the writ petitions, further prayer made is to direct the respondents 1, 2 & 3 to reconsider the bid of the petitioner in respect of both the contracts. Facts involved and the issues raised in both the Writ petitions being more or less the same, the learned counsel for the parties argued their respective cases in reference to the first Writ petition being WP(C) No. 346/2013.