GKFISCON IDEAS Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner comprises of two firms registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and they are committed to a Joint Venture by signing a deed of agreement on 03.04.2019. The petitioner responded to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 04.03.2019 (Annexure-III) floated by the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram (respondent No. 3) inviting sealed tenders in duplicate from electrical contractors possessing license and authorization to undertake installation of 132/33 kV Sub-Station -33 kV lines issued by the Mizoram Licensing Board or any other authority from other States within the country. The nature of the work mentioned in the NIT was for construction of 2x6.3 MVA, 132/33 kV Sub-Station at Mamit with Associate 33 kV Single Circuit on Double Tower line from Mamit to Zawlnuam via Zamuang. The last date for submission of the tender was fixed at 10.04.2019 and at the same time, it was the date for opening the tender at 13:00 hours. According to the petitioner, 4 firms including the petitioner firm responded to the NIT. Out of the 4 firms, 2 firms were disqualified and as a result, the petitioner as well as Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati were found to be the valid bidders. According to the petitioner, the other firm was the lowest bidder while the petitioner firm was the 2nd lowest. The petitioner was therefore, expecting the tender of the lowest bidder to be accepted. However, surprisingly, the respondent No. 3 on 29.04.2019 (Annexure-X) invited a fresh NIT for the same work fixing 12:00 hours on 21.05.2019 as the last date and time for opening of the tender. According to the petitioner, he was out of station and away at Delhi at the relevant time. He only came back on 15.05.2019 to Aizawl. That upon coming to learn the publication of a fresh tender only on 15.05.2019, the petitioner being aggrieved, initiated steps for filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was finally filed on 20.05.2019.

(3.) Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the 2nd lowest bidder, his bid ought to have been considered by the respondent authorities prior to floating a fresh tender. The issuance of a fresh tender on 29.04.2019 is only behind the back of the petitioner as no notice was issued to him. He further submits that the ground for floating the fresh NIT given in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents stating that it was due to lack of competitiveness also cannot be sustained inasmuch as according to the State respondents themselves, there were clearly two tenderers competing i.e., the petitioner and the Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati. It was therefore, incumbent on the part of the State respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner before deciding to float fresh tender. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Mining Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2012 3 GauLT 44: 2012 3 GLJ 533. He also relies upon the case of Sorath Builders Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited and Another, 2009 11 SCC 9 as well as Parasmoni Das Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors, 2003 2 GauLT 514.