TECHNOCOM Vs. RAILWAY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had responded to a tender issued by the East Central Railway being Tender No. SandT / C / 79 / R with regard to panel interlocking at Mohammadpur, Kamtaul, Jogiyara, Janakpur Road, Bajpatti and Parsauni (6 Stations). The approximate cost of the work after corrigendum was issued in this regard was estimated at about Rs. 7.66 crore with earnest money of about Rs. 5.33 lakh. Petitioner having the requisite qualification and experience obtained documents of tender and filed his tender as a composite tender in relation to all the six stations and the entire work. The rates quoted by the petitioner were above the estimate prepared by the railway and as such railway issued a letter to the petitioner being letter dated 2-2-2008 (Annexure 6) calling for a meeting on 5-2-2008 for rate negotiation.

(2.) PETITIONER pursuant to the aforesaid rate negotiation agreed to reduce the rates under various heads and duly communicated the same to the respondent clearly stating that in respect of the original tender i.e. the entire tender rates were being reduced as communicated. Then the petitioner was communicated by railway letter dated 9-2-2008 (Annexure 8) that railway had accepted the part of his tender. In the said letter the railway deleted the substantial quantity of work altering the very basic tender. It may be noted that as per petitioner's revised rate the value of the work was about Rs. 10 crore. On so called acceptance by Annexure 8 the value of the work was reduced to 4 crores by deletion of various items as mentioned in the said letter. Petitioner immediately protested and wrote to the railway that the petitioner had only agreed to reduction of rates pertaining to various type of work in the tender, which was a composite tender, petitioner had not agreed to offer of reduction of scope of work. If the scope of work had to be reduced so drastically then the petitioner was not interested in the tender.

(3.) INITIALLY petitioner had challenged Annexure 2, which is dated 20th February, 2008 and Annexure 1 the subsequent tender issued for the same. The work had already been allotted to other, the petitioner now restricts his prayer only with regard to challenging the forfeiture of earnest money.