BGP INC. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule, issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, the respondents have been called upon to show cause as to why the decision of respondent no.3, communicated under memo no. IMED/CPIU/RP-01/90-2011/151 dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure-A), purporting that the petitioner, amongst others, is non-responsive against Invitation for Engagement of Seismic Contractor for conduct of 3100 Rs.Km of 2D seismic survey in Block nos.2,3,4,6,8 and 11 under proposal no.31.02.204/160 issued on 11.04.2010, should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect.

(2.) At the time of issuance of the Rule the operation of the impugned decision dated 10.02.2011 has been stayed.

(3.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a globally reputed geophysical and seismic survey company incorporated under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China, having its Head Office in China and Branch Office in Bangladesh, impugned the decision of the respondent no.3 communicated under memo No. IMED/CPTU/RP-01/90-2011/151 dated 10.02.11 (Annexure-A) contending, inter alia, that it had undertaken seismic survey projects in various parts of the world, including Bangladesh, for different public and private sector clients. The petitioner company established a branch office in Dhaka upon obtaining permission from the Board of Investment vide memo dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-B). Vide notification dated 17.09.2009, Petrobangla, respon-dent No. 5 requested to offer Expressions of Interest (in short, EOI) for short listing seismic contractor to carry out 2D Land Seismic Contract-3100 Lkm Seismic Survey including Data Processing and Interpretation under Fast Track Programme. In response to the said invitation the petitioner submi-tted an EOI on 28.10.2009 containing necessary informations and particulars about the petitioner-company, signed by the General Manager, BGP (Bangladesh) International. It has also been contended that EOI, in fact, was submitted by the petitioner-Company, BGP Inc., China National Petroleum Corporation (in short, CNPC) as is apparent from the contents of the EOI and the materials enclosed therein including the performance certificates issued against past contracts(Annexure-D). Following the assessment of the respective EOIs submitted by the interested parties, the petitioner along with 7 (seven) other contractors were short listed as contractors for the proposed survey by Petrobangla, placing the petitioner company at serial No. 6 under the name BGP (Bangladesh) International. Accordingly, letter of invitation dated 11.04.2010 was issued enclosing therewith a Request for Proposal (in short, RFP) inviting the petitioner company to submit its proposal for the respective project (Annexure-E). Since BGP (Bangladesh) International was not a separate legal entity, but part of the internal organizational structure of the petitioner-Company the petitioner, before submitting its technical proposal(RFP) and before the respondent No. 8 filed objection, under its cover letter dated 10.06.2010 along with a letter dated 24.05.2010 and a statement dated 31.05.2010, clarified the position that the name of the short listed bidding entity was, in fact, BGP Inc., China National Petroleum Corporation (Annexure-F, F-1, and F-2 respectively). When RFPs, submitted by the petitioner-company and others, were still under the process of consideration the petitioner-company came to receive information of the impugned decision purporting that it had been declared non-responsive by the respondent no.3 vide its decision dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure-A) without making either BGP (Bangladesh) International or BGP Inc., China National Petroleum Corporation a party or giving personal hearing, upon a review petition filed by the respondent no.8 purporting to be the sub-contractor of one of the other short listed contractors, CGG Veritas, France without due authorization of the Principal-Contractor (Annexure-G,G-1 and G-2 respectively). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the petitioner company had preferred the instant application and obtained the present Rule.