MEGA KLEEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, which is a registered partnership firm, favoured with a contract by the respondent Railways for washing of bedroll linens, pursuant to the notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 19. 05. 2006, by the present writ petition has challenged the said NIT to the extent of prescribing relaxation of eligibility criteria and splitting up of the work, as well as the order dated 8. 5. 07 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No. 4, requesting the respondent No. 5 to develop its infrastructure for washing of bedroll linens at the place mentioned in its tender paper and to complete the work within 06-09 months so that 20% work of bedroll washing can be allotted to it in the first year which may increase up-to 50% of daily offered quantity on satisfactory performance during the subsequent contractual period as per terms and conditions of the NIT and further requesting it to intimate the completion of necessary infrastructure as per its commitment given in the tender papers so that the necessary agreement can be executed after spot verification by the Railways.

(2.) A notice inviting tender (NIT) was issued by the NF Railway authority on 19. 05. 06 inviting sealed tenders from reputed and financially sound business parties/washing firms for steam cleaning/mechanized washing, disinfecting and ironing of linens and dry cleaning of blankets for bedrolls in trains, public retiring rooms, etc at Guwahati Railway Station with the eligibility condition that the concerned firm should be well established in the field of professional washing and cleaning; should be sound in financial capability; should submit a solvency certificate from a nationalized bank for an amount not less than 1/4th of the estimated cost of the work; and should be experienced and qualified having proven credentials of performance in reputed/major establish-ments for similar work (steam cleaning/mechanized washing of linen and dry cleaning), besides having the specified plant equipment and assets in Guwahati area. It has also been mentioned that the contract amount received during the last three financial years and in the current financial year should be a minimum of 50% of annualized advertised tender value and the Committee constituted for the purpose would satisfy themselves about the authenticity of the certificates produced by the tenderer (s) to this effect. A 'note' was appended to the eligibility conditions to the effect that any party, who does not fulfill any or all of the eligibility conditions specified above may still bid for a development/trial order for a part quantify (maximum 20% of the tender quantity in the 1st year which can increase up-to 50% of daily offered quantity during the rest of the contract period) subject to the following:

(3.) THEREAFTER , vide the proceeding dated 8. 5. 07 the railway administration by accepting the offer made by the respondent No. 5 for a development/trial order, pursuant to the NIT dated 19. 5. 06, has awarded the contract for developing the infrastructure for washing of bedrolls and linens with the stipulation that it has to develop the infrastructure for washing the bedrolls and linens at the place mentioned in its tender paper and to complete the work within 6/9 months so that 20% work of bed roll washing can be allotted to it in the first year, which may be increased up-to 50% of the daily offered quantity on satisfactory performance during subsequent contract period as per the terms and conditions of the NIT. It may also be noticed here that the respondent No. 5 also submitted the tender paper pursuant to the NIT dated 19. 5. 06 who owns a mechanized washing plant at Shillong for regular work, apart from the development/trial work, which was however, found to be non-responsive, on account of non-conformity with the conditions of the NIT relating to not having the plant in the Guwahati area. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the NIT dated 19. 5. 06 and awarding the contract for development work in favour of respondent No. 5, basically on the ground of violation of the Railway Board's circular in that regard and also on the ground that such actions suffer from colourable exercise of powers, arbitrariness and malafide and that before issuing the order dated 8. 5. 2007 in favour of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner was not intimated, as required pursuant to the order awarding the contract in its favour dated 28. 2. 07.