TAMA FABRICATION WORKS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing, Pasighat Division, Pasighat, issued Notice Inviting Item Rate Bids (NIB) dated 11.09.2008 followed by a corrigendum dated 14.09.2008 from enlisted contractors of APPWD and those of appropriate list of Department of Telecommunication, MES, Railways, NHPC, NEEPCO for "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat". In response to the aforesaid NIB, the petitioner along with M/s T.K. Engineering Enterprises (Respondent No. 6) and others participated in the tender process. A Scrutiny Committee was constituted for evaluation and assessment of the comparative merit of the Bids of all the Bidders. During evaluation of the technical bids, the said Scrutiny Committee found certain defects and irregularities in the technical bid of the private respondent No. 6 but in spite of that the Committee qualified it for the next stage i.e. financial bid. No defect was found in the technical bid of the petitioner and as such, it was also found qualified by the said Committee for the financial bid. On 04.02.2009, the Committee opened the financial bids. A comparative statement was prepared in respect of the merit of the financial bid of both the petitioner firm and the private respondent No. 6 and after considering the same, the said Committee rejected the financial bid of the private respondent No.6 finding that the rate of amount quoted by it is about 54.10% above the estimated cost put to the tender. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the bid of the petitioner firm to the competent authority for approval of the aforesaid contract work in favour of the petitioner firm after finding that the rate of amount quoted by it i.e. Rs. 473.60 is about 4.40% below the estimated cost put to the tender and the same is within the acceptable zone. The Respondent-Chief Engineer refused to accept the recommendation of the aforesaid Scrutiny Committee inasmuch as, the aforesaid Committee constituted on 10.09.2008 was cancelled with immediate effect vide Office Order No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08/7619-20 dated 02.02.2009 and the said Committee had no authority to make such recommendation. The Respondent-Chief Engineer rejected the recommendation of the aforesaid Committee and he himself made re-evaluation/re-consideration of the bids offered by the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6. After such re-evaluation/re-consideration he recommended the bid of the private respondent No. 6 to the Government and facilitated to get the contract work awarded in its favour. For recommending the bid of respondent No. 6, the Respondent-Chief Engineer, had a secret negotiation in exclusion of other tenderers including the petitioner in violation of the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bids (NIB)/Standard Bidding Documents. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent-Chief Engineer issued the aforesaid order dated 02.02.2009 cancelling the Scrutiny Committee on back date with vested interest like favouring the respondent firm inasmuch as the holder of the power of attorney of the said firm is his sister-in-law. The Respondent-Secretary, who is also related to respondent No. 3 by showing nepotism mechanically approved the recommendation made by the Respondent-Chief Engineer and ultimately the private respondent No. 6 have been awarded with the aforesaid contract works.

(2.) In this writ petition, (i) the order dated 02.02.2009 cancelling the constitution of Standing Committee for scrutiny of tender documents/NIT allegedly on back date; (ii) secret post negotiation in exclusion to other tenderers; (iii) re-consideration/re-evaluation of bids of tenderers by the Respondent-Chief Engineer himself cancelling the recommendation of the Tender Sub-Committee and making recommendation afresh in favour of the private respondent No. 6 out of alleged nepotism and vested interest and (iv) approval given by the Respondent-Secretary to the aforesaid recommendation of the Respondent-Chief Engineer without applying her mind and without considering the related merit of the tenderers; are under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5.