RIBU BHARALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, Govt. of Assam.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by, as; many as, 7 Contractors who are registered under various categories Class-III, Class-II,, Class-I, Class-I(b) etc. Under the P.W. Deptt., Govt. of Assam. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to sanction by the: North Eastern Council, for short NEC, State; P.W.D. invited tenders vide notification dated 17.5.2004 in respect of certain civil works; pertaining to Guwahati Medical College Hospital, for short GMCH. hi the said Notification the respondent authorities had incorpo- 'rated a stipulation/clause that Contractors belonging to Class-1 (a) shall only be eligible to participate in the said tender. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said invitation of single bid for undertaking all the repair/innovation works, as a result of which small Contractors have been eliminated. According to the petitioners, the above action of the respondent No. 4 is arbitrary, illegal and unfair and the petitioners have prayed for quashing the said tender notice dated 17.5.2004.

(3.) The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia, that the petitioners have no locus standi to prefer the present writ petition; that out of the 7 writ petitioners, 3 of the writ petitioners have not executed any work under the NEC Plan for last 5 years and the others had executed petty works for annual value of around five lakhs, that the tender was floated as per the standard bid system formulated by the Govt. of India and the norms laid down by the NEC as the Project is financed by them. It is stated that the bids are exclusively for Class-1 (a) Contractors only as they have experience, equipment, technology and financial capability to execute the work.