HIGHTENSION SWITCHGEARS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 4, in his capacity as the Executive Engineer, Government of Tripura, Resource Division, Panchamukh, Agartala, for implementation of the "Drinking Water Supply" Scheme in Tripura issued Press Notice Inviting Tender (for short, PNIT) from the eligible bidders for procuring supply of UPVC pipes of different diameters and pressure. In the NIT, though the estimated cost was not mentioned, the earnest money was shown as Rs. 26,45,213.00 which was one percent of the estimated cost value, as per clause 14.1 (Preparation of tender) of the Tripura PWD Works Manual. The petitioner being a manufacturer of the items, in respect of which the NIT was issued, submitted two tender forms. After opening the bids, submitted by the respective bidders, all the bids were found defective. Therefore, the petitioner and other bidders were directed to submit additional documents, particulars to establish their eligibility. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted supplementary documents regarding his financial capacity, which stood at Rs. 10,02,94,291.33 as per the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. After considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and the other bidders, in respect of their technical bids, the official respondents eliminated the petitioner from participating in the price bid on the ground of financial incompetence.

(2.) According to the petitioner, as the bids submitted by the tenderers were not in conformity with the terms and conditions of the NIT and in view of the non-mentioning the estimated cost of the work, the elimination of the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary and perverse. It is contended that as the respondent-authority allowed the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to participate in the price bid by illegally eliminating the petitioner from participating in the said bid. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking following reliefs by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court:-

(3.) Challenging the petitioner's claim, the State respondents have submitted a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit aforesaid, it is stated that, in view of mentioning of the earnest money, which was one percent of the estimated cost value of the work, no gross illegality was committed by not mentioning the estimated cost in the tender notice. It is stated in the counter affidavit, that the value of the cost of the work can be reasonably estimated by the tenderers, dealing with the tender items and that as none of the bidders could fulfil the tender conditions, for qualifying for their participation in the price bid opening, the Chief Engineer analysed and evaluated the bids under the scope of sub-clauses 9.1, 20.1 and 21.2 of the Draft NIT and invited the petitioner and the private respondents for ascertaining their bid capacity by giving equal opportunity to all of them. Accordingly, all the bidders including the petitioner attended the office of the Chief Engineer and produced the supplementary documents in support of their claim. It is contended, by the answering respondents, in the said affidavit, that by way of such clarification, all the bidders came to the same level in respect of all the points except for bid capacity and that on the basis of the additional documents submitted by the bidders and on proper evaluation, it was found that during the year 2006-07, the petitioner executed maximum value of supply work amounting to Rs. 10.11 crores. Accordingly, giving ten percent weightage per year on the said amount, it is contended, that the current price of value of work done by the petitioner came to Rs. 13.46 crore only which was much less than the value of the works done by the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The value of the work done by the respondent No. 5 during the year 2008-09 was found to be Rs. 72.26 crores, while value of the works done by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was found to be Rs. 899.57 crores and Rs. 48.86 crores respectively. In view of the above, as the estimated cost of the work was Rs. 26.45 crores, the petitioner could not fulfil the requirement for "price bid" capacity and as such he was not found suitable for participating in the "price bid". The contesting respondents further contended that the petitioner having failed to qualify for the bid, there was no violation of any right of the petitioner or miscarriage of justice and as such he was not entitled to get the relief claimed for. The non-official respondent No. 6 has also contested the petitioner's claim by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit, the answering respondent No. 6 stated that the writ petitioner participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the contents of the NIT and the DNIT and as such, he having participated in the entire process, cannot challenge the same on the ground of vagueness of the NIT or any omission to indicate the estimated cost of the work.