M.S. TRADERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the communication dated 21.12.2013 by respondent no. 3 instructing Superintending Engineer to allot the work to the respondent no. 5 and communication dated 28.08.2013 by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation directing the Executive Engineer to enter into an agreement with respondent no. 5 and with a further prayer to cancel the agreement and allotment of tender to respondent no. 5, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a partnership firm having long experience in the field of micro lift irrigation, construction of ponds, dams etc. which it successfully completed over the years. A tender notice dated 12.11.2013 was published in the Hindi daily newspaper (Hindustan) inviting bids for the work of "Restoration of Tandwa M.I. Scheme, Block-Pratappur, District-Chatra" for an estimated cost of Rs. 1,69,65,000/-. As many as eight bids were submitted including the bid by respondent no. 5 and when the bids were opened it was found that 6 bids were of the same value, i.e., for Rs. 1,50,93,094/-. By letters dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013, necessary instructions were issued for awarding the contract to the respondent no. 5-M/s. Naina Enterprise claiming that the M/s. Naina Enterprise was registered on 08.10.2013 whereas, the petitioner-M/s. M.S. Traders was registered w.e.f. 12.10.2011 and thus, in terms of Government Circular of 1991, the petitioner being the senior most amongst the tenderers who participated in the bid deserved to be allotted the contract. In these facts, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 stating that an open tender through e-Procurement was invited for the construction of Check-Dam namely, Restoration of Tandwa M.I. Scheme and it was put on website on 19.11.2013. Since, the work experience of the petitioner-company was not in the nature of similar work as required in N.I.T. and it was found that the work experience worth Rs. 83,39,642/- produced by the petitioner-company indicated that the payment was made mostly against supply of materials, the respondent no. 5 was given preference. Since the petitioner had not requisite work experience, its seniority was not considered. An agreement with respondent no. 5 was entered into on 04.01.2014 and by the time the counter-affidavit was filed on 19.02.2014 about 10% work was already carried out. A comparative statement indicating rate quoted, registration, evaluation of experience in the same nature of work etc. has been annexed along with counter-affidavit.