C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 05, 2008
M/S Gautam Builders & another
...... Petitioners
through Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate
v.
Chandigarh Housing Board & others,
...... Respondents
through Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
C.M.No.16717 of 2008
C.M is allowed and the replication to the written statement filed
by respondent No.4 is taken on record.
C.M.No.16735 of 2008
C.M is allowed and the replication to the written statement filed
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is taken on record.
C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: C.W.P.No.14120 of 2008
The petitioner has challenged the orders, dated 21.5.2008 and
8.8.2008, whereby the official respondents have rejected his technical bid
with respect to the construction of 208 two bed rooms flats (finishing items)
in Sector 49D, Chandigarh.
By notice dated 13.5.2008, respondents No.1 to 3 invited bids
for the above mentioned project which, inter alia, required the intending
tenderers to present their tenders in two sealed envelopes, the first one being
a technical bid and the second one being a financial bid. The notice further
required an eligibility criteria in the shape of (i) a valid enlistment
certificate of appropriate class and (ii) proof of having satisfactorily
completed, inter alia, atleast one similar work costing Rs.599 lacs during the
last seven years ending last day of the previous month of calling of tenders
in respect of such agencies/contractors who had not been enlisted by
respondents No.1 to 3 in the appropriate class. The petitioner submitted his
tender documents, and as stated above, his technical bid having been
rejected, he is before this Court.
As a proof of meeting the eligibility criterial condition No.(ii)
(supra), the petitioner had annexed various certificates to the effect that he
had indeed satisfactorily completed work of the requisite magnitude.
However, by a letter dated 21.5.2008 the petitioner was informed that his
bid had been rejected since “he had not supplied the complete documents
required as per the tender document such as proofs from appropriate
authority of having completed similar nature of works, certified copy of
power of attorney in favour of the partner who made application, certified
copy of the partnership deed and current address of all the partners of the
C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::3::
firm.” By replication, the petitioner has asserted that he had appended
certified copies of the power of attorney, partnership deed, addresses of all
the partners along with his bid and that despite that fact, by way of abundant
caution had re-submitted the same immediately on receipt of the above
mentioned letter dated 21.5.2008.
In the written statements filed by the official respondents and
the sole remaining tenderer respectively, it has been urged that the bid of the
petitioner has been rightly rejected for the above reasons. It has been
mentioned by the official respondents that “….the petitioners attached a few
certificates of having constructed the flats of private societies and that of a
few Government Departments….”. Further a reliance has been placed upon
certain documents obtained by respondent No.4 under the Right to
Information Act to substantiate the plea that the petitioner did not meet the
eligibility criterial condition No.(ii) (supra). However, in the application
dated 16.6.2008 filed by respondent No.4, questions No.2 and 5 are as
follows :-
“2. Whether the work is completed and what is the
completion value ?
5. Is it correct that a completion certificate has been
issued by PM (MAP) Project of value Rs.17.5 crore
inclusive of value of Rs.6.125 crore for finishing items in
the flats such as “Joinery work, Flooring work, P.H
fittings/fixtures etc ?”
The answers to the above questions in the information supplied
by letter dated 4.8.2008 are as follows :-
“2. The work is completed and completion value is
C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::4::
approx. Rs.17,88,31,423.00 (Rupees seventeen crore
eighty eight lacs thirty one thousand four hundred twenty
three only).
5. Yet, it is correct.”
It is, thus, clear that even this information goes to substantiate
the assertion of the petitioner.
The petitioner has levelled allegations of mala fide against the
official respondents to the effect that the entire action of rejecting technical
bid was made with the express purpose of facilitating the grant of the
tender to the sole competitor- respondent No.4.
On giving our anxious consideration to all the facts which have
been brought on the record, we find that the petitioner could not have been
declared ineligible for want of meeting eligibility criterial condition No.(ii)
supra) without considering all the certificates attached by him. As regards
the allegation of the petitioner that the other requisite documents had been
appended to the bid, the same does sound plausible in view of the fact that
admittedly the petitioner was an enlisted contractor with the official
respondents though of a lower class and, thus, in all probability, having
prior knowledge of the procedure, had appended the same. In any case
immediately on receipt of the rejection order, the petitioner had submitted
the same and keeping in view the fact that the firm was already enlisted with
the official respondents, the rejection by them on these grounds is, to our
mind, a hyper-technical approach.
Before parting with this judgment, we would however wish to
enter a caveat. In view of the decision on merits, we have not found it fit
to examine the allegation of the petitioner regarding mala fide. Normally
C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::5::
decisions on technical matters are best left to experts and it is with the
extreme reluctance that Courts deign to entertain such conflicts. This fact
however places a greater onus on the functionaries of the State to be very
circumspect in deciding such matters particularly in such a case where a
controversial disqualification may leave the field open for a sole competitor.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the rejection of the
technical bid of the petitioner on the grounds taken in the impugned orders
is set aside and respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to re-examine the bid of
the petitioner and take consequent decision in accordance with law
thereafter.
No costs.
( AJAY TEWARI )
JUDGE
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
September 05, 2008
'kk'