JUDGMENT
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek a direction to be issued to the respondents and allot works in its favor to the petitioners and to consider to be the lowest. In the writ petition it has been tender submitted by it is found that it is engaged in the business of construction for the last over 14 years and is registered with the CPWD, DDA and other agencies as Class A-1 Contractor for executing an unlimited amount of contract. In pursuance of an advertisement in the newspaper inviting pre-qualification applications from the contractors of repute for certain works published by the respondent No. 2 the petitioners obtained the pre-qualification documents and submitted an application in the prescribed proforma and delivered the same to the office of respondent No. 2 on 14.12.1994. According to the petitioners there are two conditions prescribed by respondent No. 2 towards eligibility for issue of tenders for the 4 works in question as laid down by respondent No. 2. The said two conditions are set out herein below :
(i) Average annual financial turn over (gross)
Not less than
during last 3 years duly audited by Rs. 250 lacs.
Chartered Accountant of verified by Income
Tax authorities. Year in which no turnover
is shown would also be considered for
working out average.
(ii) Satisfactory completion of structures
3 building works
including cost of Govt. materials during
individually
last 7 years duly certified by an officer
costing not less
not below the rank of Executive Engineer. than Rs. 200 lacs each.
OR
Two works of
aggregate cost
not less than
6 crores during
the last 7 years
ending 31.3.1994.
4. According to the petitioners they satisfy both the eligibility conditions prescribed by respondent No. 2 and as the petitioners are a contractor of repute and fulfill all the pre-qualification requirements, the petitioners were entitled to the issue of tender documents but no such tender documents have been issued to the petitioners. Since it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that such tender documents have been issued to several other contractors but not to the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer before this court.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated inter alia that the two conditions which are mentioned in clause 7.03 of the pre-qualification application as the minimum eligibility criteria for pre-qualification are average annual financial turnover (gross) during last 3 years being not less than Rs. 250 lacs and secondly satisfactory completion of structures including cost of Government materials during last 7 years, 3 building works individually costing not less than Rs. 200 lacs each. The petitioners satisfy the aforesaid two conditions. However, according to the respondents para 8.0 of the pre-qualification application further laid down the criteria for the mode of evaluation and selection of the contractors who have already satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria as specified in para 7.03, which are set out herein above. The said stipulation is that those firms meeting the initial criteria as set out in para 7.03 would also be evaluated keeping in view the following aspects :
(a) Financial; (b) Equipment; (c) Experience; (d) Personnel.
According to the respondents after examining the details furnished by the various contractors it was found that 28 contractors have been able to satisfy the minimum requirement as stipulated in the pre-qualification documents in order to select the best contractors out of the 28 contractors, who have satisfied the minimum criteria specified in the pre-qualifications documents. The Competent Authority, namely-the Director General of Works, C.P.W.D. selected only 14 contractors for the issue of tender documents in accordance with the provisions of clause 8.00 and 4.01 of the pre-qualification documents. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners although fulfillled the minimum eligibility criteria specified in clause 7.03 in the pre-qualification document but did not pre-qualify in the further evaluation and selection of the contractors done in accordance with the provisions of clause 8 and clause 4.01 of the pre-qualification document by the competent authority and accordingly no tender papers could be issued to the petitioners.
4. We have heard Mr. K. M. Sharma the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. K. Shali appearing for the respondents. In order to satisfy ourselves with regard to the mode and manner of evaluation and selection of the contractors by the respondents we directed Mr. Shali to produce she record before us, in pursuance of which Mr. Shali produced the original records before us. We have perused the said records which also contained a comparative statement for pre-qualification. From the said comparative statement of evaluation on the basis of financial capacity, work experience, technical staff and equipment available and volume of work executed by different contractors who had satisfied minimum requirements as laid down under para 7.03 we find that 20 marks were allotted for the financial capability, 60 marks were allotted for works experience and 10 marks each towards personnel and equipment availability. From the said comparative statement it appears that the 14 contractors who have been finally selected by the respondents for issue of tender documents scored more marks than that of the petitioners in the said evaluation.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid records we are satisfied that the respondents considered the relevant merits of the 28 contractors including the petitioners and on such consideration the petitioners were not found fit and suitable to be selected for issuance of the tender documents. The criteria as disclosed from the aforesaid records for making the aforesaid selection appears to us to the just and reasonable. When the petitioners could not satisfy the yardstick and the criteria fixed by the respondent, we cannot hold that tender documents should be issued to the petitioners. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made but the decision process itself and that since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision the court cannot substitute its decision. It has been further held in that case that it is not function of a Judge to act as a super power or with zeal of a pedantic school master to substitute its judgment for that of an Administrator. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court this court cannot act as an appellate authority and scrutinise minutely each detail of the decision of the respondents not to issue any tender papers to the petitioners in view of his failure to satisfy the criteria fixed for pre-qualification evaluation. In our view the decision of the respondents not to issue any tender documents for his failure to meet the pre-qualification requirements cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or irrational as we have found from the records produced before us.
6. In the aforesaid view of our findings this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed, but without any costs.