MEGA ELECTRICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC, for respondent Union of India, Mr. K. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the State Respondents; and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, for Respondent No. 9.

(2.) By preferring this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order, dated, 11.03.2017, by which the respondent No. 7, the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Miao Electrical Circle-III, Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh has arbitrarily and illegally rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground of L2 and also prayed for a direction not to award the Letter of Award (LOA) to private respondent No. 9, in respect of the contract work vide NIT, dated, 11.04.2016 namely " Rural Electrification works of Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh under Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY)".

(3.) The petitioner is one of the partners of the partnership Firm, namely, M/s. Mega Electricals and till date, there is no adverse remark against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in NIT, dated, 11.04.2016 for the work "Rural Electrification of Tirap District" under DDUGJY along with others. According to the petitioner, after computer generated comparative statement, respondent No. 9 was declared to be L1 and the bid of petitioner was L2. However, after proper evaluation by the Tender Evaluation Committee (for short, 'TEC'), it was found that the respondent No. 9 was found non-responsive, thereby holding the petitioner to be the technically qualified lowest bidder. The said TEC of Miao Electrical Circle further rejected the price bid of respondent No. 9, as it had defaulted under Clause 23.5 of ITB in connection with execution of Khonsa-Lazu PACKAGE of RRVY scheme under Deomali Electrical Division during 2010-11. The petitioner was also found to be the lowest bidder as per guidelines given in the bid documents of DDUGJY and further, the bid of respondent No. 9 was rejected on the ground that it has opted for direct mode of transaction and had quoted only the base rates and did not quote their rates for applicable taxes and duties separately. When the petitioner came to know that the respondent authorities were not issuing the Letter of Award ('LoA', for short), the petitioner filed an RTI application. After perusal of the related documents given in response to his application, it was seen that the respondent no. 9 did not fill the columns of taxes and duties separately by showing the price break down of his price bid which was in violation of Clauses 11.3 and 11.4 of the ITB. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner (Power) cum CEO of Arunachal Power Development Agency (APDA) negated the findings of the respondent No. 6 and the TEC and directed the concerned authority to examine the price bids of all the bidders as per the advice of the Executive Director of Rural Electrical Corporation and finally forwarded the matter for approval in favour of respondent No. 9 by rejecting the bid of the petitioner stating that he was found to be L2 vide the impugned letter, dated 11.03.2017.