INDER SINGH SOODAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Nowshera (B.L) Respondent No.5 herein, vide Tender Notice (NABARD works) No.30 of 2008 dated 3.9.2008 invited tenders from eligible contractors for construction of five roads in Nowshera Division, including road from Kurlian to Mougla via Keri Chabbar at an estimated cost of Rs.85.00 lacs. The eligibility/prequalification criteria for an intending tenderer included ''additional earnest money in shape of CDR @ 5% of the tendered amount,'' in case tenderer quoted depreciation @ 10% or more of SSR of 2004 (below the workable rate). Further intending contractor should have executed one similar type of work of 1/5 of magnitude of the tendered amount. In other words an intending contractor who quoted less than the workable sanctioned schedule rate was to give additional earnest money as in such cases there were more chances of the contractor leaving the work unexecuted mid way exposing the Department to avoidable loss. The petitioner as also the respondent No.6 responded to the tender notice. The contract, however, Vide order 12768-70 dated 17.12.2008 was allotted to the Respondent No.6.

(2.) The petitioner assails the allotment order No. 12768-70 dated 17.12.2008 on the ground that the respondent No.6 did not fulfill the eligibility/prequalification criteria set out in the tender notice in question. The respondent No.6, it is pleaded, did not enclose additional earnest money in shape of CDR @ 5% of the tendered amount with the requisite papers, though the respondent No.6 quoted depreciation r; more than 10% on SSR of 2004 (below workable rate). It is averred that the respondent No.6 did not thus fulfill the pre-qualification criteria and was not eligible even to be considered for allotment of the contract. It is insisted that only the contractor who fulfills pre-qualification criteria is eligible to be considered for allotment of the contract and the respondent No.6 having not satisfied the important prequalification criteria was not entitled to be considered for such allotment, let alone, entitled to be allotted the contract. The petitioner claims to have satisfied the eligibility/ prequalification criteria and thus entitled to consideration for allotment of the contract.

(3.) The petitioner on the strength of averments made seeks quashment of order Mo. 12768-70 dated 17.12.2008 whereby contract in question has been allotted to the respondent No.6 as also a direction to the respondent to consider the allotment of contract in question in favour of the petitioner.