RAMENDRA PRASAD DAS Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Writ Petition about the procedural fairness in the realm of allotment of contract by the public authority. The Respondent No. 2, The Chief Engineer, (TandT), Assam, State Electricity Board, invited sealed tender from reputed manufacturer-cum-Erectors for supply and execution of some works. This case is concerned with the tender specification No. ASEB/CE/TT/TR-67(B) for construction of 220 K.V. D/C Tower foundation erection of towers as per approved drawing of ASEB, string of zebra conductor ground wise testing and commissioning B. G. Railway track crossing by existing 220 KV D/C towers at 7 (seven) locations. Clause A-II-10 contained the provisions of past experience e.g. :

(2.) As per the specification contained in bidding document tender was required to submit with his bids in two separate envelopes viz. the technical and commercial bid and other for the price bid. As per NIT if the bidder is not found qualified in the technical and commercial bid then his tender would be entirely rejected.

(3.) Altogether 4 (four) parties submitted their tenders paper including that of the Petitioner. On 26-12-95 the technical/commercial bid of the tenderers were opened and duly examined by the design circle transmission of the Board which is headed by an Engineer of the rank of Superintending Engineer. It was asserted by the Petitioner that on 6-2-96 the Superintending Engineer after examination of the tender had submitted his report after scrutinising and examining the matter in depth and forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer (T and T). The petitioner asserted the Chief Engineer is the final authority to accept or reject the tenders and in the instant case the Chief Engineer delegated his function to the Deputy Manager, Accounts and on the basis of Deputy Manager, Accounts note the Chief Engineer, (T and T) decided not to accept the tender of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner he is one of the experienced Contractors in the line and more so he tied up with M/s. Ananta Chowdhury who is also experienced in the trade. But the authority without considering his experience and financial credibility rejected his tender arbitrarily and capriciously. The authority also fell into serious error on rejection of the tender on irrelevant consideration.The Respondents filed its affidavit and contested the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondents narrated that the contract relates to the matter of great public importance relating to construction of B.G., railway line from Bongaiga to Guwahati via Panchratna ghat across the river Brahmaputra and the said railway line to pass into various places beneath the high tension 220 KV line namely Agia Sinha line. According to the Board the authority while constructing the railway line the railways collected high earth for the Railway track and thereby vertical clearance between the said EHV line and the ground level drastically reduced far less than the statutory vertical clearance under the provisions of the Electricity Acts and Rules. The Board (ASEB) through its officers brought the same to the notice of the Railway and thereafter it was decided that the Respondent/Board shall renovate the existing line on all crossing points providing for required vertical clearance in accordance with its relevant laws as early as possible. After a joint survey the Board submitted its provisional estimate to the Railway and in pursuance of which a notice tender were so invited. According to the Board, the report of Superintending Engineer (designed) and the office note from the office of the Chief Engineer (T and T) were referred to Deputy Manager, Accounts for verification and scrutiny. The Deputy Manager, Accounts gave detailed report on 28-3-96 which revealed that the tenders submitted by the petitioner and M/s. Shri Ram Construction and Associates were not complete as per tender specification and hence were not acceptable. According to the said note nothing was submitted regarding supply of insulator and accessories of Tower, Conductor, Nuts and Bolts etc. As regards experience of the petitioner, he submitted information only of maintenance works and not original construction works of the kinds. According to the said note the Petitioner does not have required practical experience to undertake erection work of the kind which requires considerable knowledge and practical experience. According to the Board an affidavit of Mr. A. Chowdhury was submitted undertaking to assist the petitioner in connection with the 'works', but the name was not considered sufficient to meet the requirement of the board and the alleged experience of Sri Chowdhury could not be considered as the experience of the petitioner. The said note also contained that the financial position of the petitioner was also not sound and adequate. According to the Board the experience of the petitioner is only confined to maintenance work and, therefore, respondents were not in a position to accept the tender of the petitioner. The Board also asserted thatthe tenders of the remaining two other tenderers, viz. DeeBee Construction and Transpower (P) Ltd. were found to be adequate for opening the price bid tender as they executed considerable number of similar works as evident from the list of works completed by them as shown in the list enclosed to the respective tenders including the Brahmaputra crossing 220 KV double circuit EHV line at Bhomo-raguri (Tezpur) and Panchratna Ghat (Goalpara) and submitted required papers. Accordingly price bids of the said two tenders were opened and the tenders (price bid) of the petitioner and Shri Ram Construction. were not opened. It was asserted that extension of B. G. lines is of prime national importance and is to be completed within the time schedule. The work of extension line is totally stopped on the aforesaid 7 numbers of crossing points as the earth formation thereunder had to be removed under pressing legal mandate as stated above, and after completion of the EHV line across the said 7 Nos. crossing points, the Railway shall have to complete the earth work and on due formation of solid earth the B. G. Railway line will be possible. According to the Board the work in question is of highly technical in nature and is required to be completed within the time bound programme involving huge costs. The Board further stated that the petitioner carried out the following work :(a) Switchyard and lighting works of Barnagar 33 KV and 11/33 KV Sub-Station.(b) Extension works of 132 KV S/C Sisugram Sipajhar line.(c) Changing of Disc insulators of 13(. KV D/ c Tinsukia Mergherita line. According to the Board, the above works did not relate to erection work. The Respondents averred that the certificates enclosed with the tender papers is not in conformity with tender specifications and since Sri Ananta Chowdhury does not belong to member of Contractors' Organisational set up and no agreement regarding tie up with Sri Chowdhury was also submitted along with tender papers. The Board also submitted the record for perusal of the Court.