GAMMON INDIA LTD Vs. PROJECT DIRECTOR RUIDP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Gammon India Ltd. in SBCWP No. 3687/2005 and the petitioner-Subhash Project Marketing Ltd. in SBCWP No. 3574/2005 have challenged the letter of the Respondent-Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (for short "ruidp") dated 9. 05. 2005 as contained in Annexure-P/1 by which the petitioners have been excluded from the list of selected applicants for participating in the pre- qualification bids in pursuance of a notification dated 31. 5. 2003 which was issued on 6. 6. 2003 for awarding contract of Jaipur Bisalpur Water Supply Project. THEy have further challenged the reasons assigned by the RUIDP indicating it to the applicants as to why their application for participating in the bidding process has been rejected. Consequently, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter No. F3 (59)/pq-Cont/bsl/160 dated 9. 5. 2005 and to further quash the reasons stated in Schedule A to the reply to the Civil Writ Petition No. 3332/2005 for not pre-qualifying the petitioners- Gammon India Ltd. from participating in the bidding process. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for cancelling the pre- qualification bidding process of Jaipur Bisalpur Water Supply Project and directing that the bidding process be initiated after conducting the pre-qualification process in accordance with the norms laid down.

(2.) SIMILARLY in the case of Subhash Project & Marketing Ltd. the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 9. 05. 2005 as contained in Annexure-P/10 assigning reason that the petitioner-Subhash Project & Marketing Ltd. does not qualify in terms of the notice to participate in the bid as the working capital of the company falls short of the criterion which has been fixed by the respondents for participating in the bid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents Mr. Ashok Gaur however argued with zeal and vehemence that the petitioner has rightly been disqualified from participating in the bidding process as the method of accounting which has been adopted by the respondents to assess the working capital and the balance sheet of the company, the liabilities on the company could not have been ignored by the committee while assessing the balance sheet of the petitioner-company as also its working capital. It was contended that the liabilities of the company had to be assessed in terms of the national and international criteria and some complicated procedure which is beyond the comprehension of this Court, is sought to be explained by the counsel for the respondent in order to substantiate the plea that the respondents have taken an objective decision while disqualifying the petitioner-company from participating in the bid.