LALNUNMAWIA Vs. THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram on behalf of the Government of Mizoram invited Sealed Item Rates/Percentage Rate Tender from approved and eligible Contractor of PWD and firms for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn and construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn by NIT dated 21-2-2014.

(2.) Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents.

(3.) Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the petitioner had tendered his bid document which was opened on 18.2.2014. There were 3 bidders, amongst which the petitioner's bid was found to be the lowest and in the comparative statement for the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the respondents had indicated that there are 3 tenderers and all the tenderers are responsive. Further, the Executive Engineer (P), PWD, Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram has certified that he has personally conducted a test check of all the computed and checked tenders and have satisfied himself that the checking work has been properly done and that the comparative statement correctly incorporates the totals as checked on the individual tenders. However, the respondent No. 5 had observed on the comparative statement that there are a number of mistake/discrepancies in the tender BOQ which may lead to number of problems in execution. It was on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5 that the said noting was approved by the higher authorities leading to the cancellation of the NIT. He submits that amongst the 3 tenderers, the petitioner was found to be the lowest and when the comparative statement was prepared, all the tenders were found to be responsive. This being the admitted position, it was duty bound on the part of the respondents to have awarded the work to the petitioner instead of cancelling the NIT solely on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5.