w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Kumar Construction Co. Thru' Its Partner S.K. Singh v/s Project Director National Highways Authority

    Writ - C No. 58938 of 2014

    Decided On, 23 February 2015

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

    For the Appellant: A.S.G.I., D.K. Singh, Pranjal Mehrotra, S.C., V.K. Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Krishna Shukla, Arvind Sikaria, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2.

2. The petitioner was a bidder in pursuance of an advertisement inviting tender through e-tendering by the National Highway Authority of India for annual maintenance of work of NH-29 Varanasi - Gorakhpur Section (Km. 2.225 to Km. 30). The technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 53876 of 2014, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 09-10-2014 by making following observations :

"Reasons for holding the petitioner technically disqualified at the stage of technical bid shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from receipt of the certified copy of this order by the authority concerned. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the reasons disclosed in the matter of his being technically disqualified he will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

This writ petition is finally disposed off. "

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner was communicated the reasons for rejecting its technical bid vide letter dated 10-10-2014, which is under challenge in this petition. The following reasons were disclosed for rejection of technical bid.

1. In the qualifying criteria of the bid under clause 4.4A(b), the petitioner did not qualify either for requirement of single work (amount = 12.97 crore), two works (amount for each work = 9.73 cr.), three work (amount for each work = 6.49 cr.).

2. The Technical Evaluation Committee found that the petitioner did not submit the evidence of availability (either owned, leased or rented of item construction equipment as prescribed in appendix to ITB).

4.4 A (b) of the Tender Document prescribes the following conditions :

"4.4 A. To qualify for award of the contract, each bidder in its name should have the following :-

(a) achieved an average annual financial turnover (in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) amount indicated in Appendix to ITB or NIT during last three year ending 31st March of the previous financial year duly certified by Chartered Accountant.

(b) satisfactorily completed (not less than 90% of contract value), as a prime contractor (or as a nominated subcontractor duly approved by Employer, provided further that all other qualification criteria are satisfied) similar works during last seven years ending last day of month previous to the one in which bids are invited should be either of the following :

i. Three similar competed works costing not less than amount equals to Rs. 9.49 crore each.

ii. Two similar completed works costing not less than amount equals to Rs. 9.73 core each.

iii. One similar completed work costing not less than amount equals to Rs. 12.97 crore."

4. Admittedly, according to own case set up by the petitioner as culled out from the supplementary affidavit , it did not comply with the conditions (ii) & (iii) inasmuch as it had never completed works costing not less than amount equals to Rs. 9.73 core and Rs. 12.97 crore.

5. Apart from above, Appendix to ITB clearly provides a list of equipments to be deployed by the petitioner or available with it to carry out the work, which the petiti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

oner failed to satisfy in its bid document that it was possessing the same. 6. The petitioner having failed to comply with the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in the bid documents, its technical bid was rightly rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee and thus we find no reason to interfere with the same. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
O R