Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5775/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5775 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G. B. SHAH
Sd/-
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=================================================
M/S
R N DOBARIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVERNMENT
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR KG SUKHWANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Mr N J Shah, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 19/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr K G Sukhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr
N J Shah, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1. This
petition has been filed by the petitioner who is
a registered “AA” Class Government Contractor carries on
business as Engineers and Contractors and is also
having registration in special category building-I with the Public
Works Department of Government of Gujarat.
2. The
facts of the case in brief are that in response to the tender notice
No. 20 for various construction works invited by the respondents, the
petitioner has submitted price bid on 15.3.2011. The last date for
submitting price bid was 18.3.2011which was extended twice and the
extended date was 26.4.2011. The price bid of other bidders were
opened on 26.4.2011 but the petitioner has not been selected in
preliminary stage evaluation and his price bid was not opened. This
petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the
action of the respondents in not selecting the tender of the
petitioner for work of construction of new building for Medical
College at Valsad and for a direction to the respondents to open the
price bid of the petitioner for the above work and consider his case
in accordance with law.
3. It
appears that the respondents had refused to consider the bid of the
petitioner as according to the respondents the petitioner is not
qualified to participate in the bid in view of the conditions of the
tender notice. A contractor has to produce necessary proof of
eligibility criteria in the pre-qualification submission and the
tenderer should have completed at least one project work of similar
nature having more than 40% of the estimated cost of the work during
the last five financial years as prime contractor. According to the
petitioner, the certificate issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation
which has been annexed at page No.315 of the petition shows that he
had carried out the work of a project of Rs.2804.97 lacs including
cost of cement and steel worth Rs.1103.91 lacs which was provided by
the Surat Municipal Corporation. According to the respondents, cost
of steel and cement supplied by the Surat
Municipal Corporation could not be added in the
estimated cost of the work carried out by the petitioner. If the cost
of cement and steel is reduced, it would be clear that the petitioner
has not done the work having more than 40% of the estimated cost of
the construction work and thus he was not qualified for the contract
for construction of new building for Medical College at Valsad. We
are of the opinion that the cost of cement and steel which was
supplied by the Surat Municipal Corporation could not be added to the
cost of construction work done by the petitioner. Therefore, the
respondents have rightly refused to open the price bid of the
petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the action taken by
the respondents in not selecting the tender of the petitioner for the
aforesaid work.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on precedent prevailing in
other States. Every State has its own terms and conditions and
procedures which cannot be applied to this case.
4. In
the result, this petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly
dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top