Dismissed

Subodh Construction Company v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2014CWP/1943/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an empanelled contractor, was declared L-1 in a tender but challenged the subsequent technical qualification of another bidder. The High Court found a clerical error in interpreting the other bidder's enlistment validity but dismissed the petition as the Petitioner's qualification remained valid and the second bidder's financial bid was under the court's stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear own costs; interim order vacated.

Subodh Construction Company Vs Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.1943 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.1943 of 2014 Date of Decision: 11.03.2014

¶5

Subodh Construction Company

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Haryana State Agricultural and Marketing Board and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶11

Present:Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶12

¶13

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2.To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶15

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶16

¶17

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

¶18

The petitioner before us is the sole proprietorship concern and claims to be on the empanelment list of contractors of the respondent i.e. Haryana State Agriculture and Marketing Board. A tender was floated by the Executive Engineer of the respondent Board, Jhajjar district through e-Infosys for construction/special repair of link road from NVM Jhajjar (Chowk) to Badli road in the division Jhajjar at an estimated cost of `321.28 lacs on 20.01.2014. The tender was in two parts consisting of technical and financial bids, respectively. The last

¶19

Rajan Kumar 2014.03.13 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.1943 of 2014

¶22

date for opening the tender was specified as 27.01.2014. The petitioner submitted its online tender.

¶23

The tenders were opened at 5:00 pm on 27.01.2014 yet four bids were found to have been made. However, out of these four bids two bids were rejected on technical grounds including that of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the financial bids of two technically qualified bidders were opened in which the bid of the petitioner was more competitive and he was found L-1. The petitioner was, accordingly, informed on the same day.

¶24

It appears that the representation was made by respondent No.4 that he had been wrongly technically disqualified and this gave rise to a communication from respondent No.3/Executive Engineer to respondent No.2/ Superintending Engineer seeking a clarification. The only reason for holding respondent No.4 technically disqualified was that his enlistment was not received at the time of opening of the tender. It, however, transpires that what was really in question was the interpretation of the enlistment certificate of respondent No.4 valid upto 31.03.2013 issued vide enlistment No.3829 dated 09.05.2011. The certificate specified that respondent No.4 was enlisted in Class I category for road work of Haryana PWD B&R (upto 1 crore and for more than 1 crore, it is subject to qualification criteria of the bid document). It is the bracketed portion, which is stated to have raised some confusion as the Executive Engineer presumed that the certificate is valid upto a

¶25

CWP No.1943 of 2014

¶26

[3]

¶27

value of works upto 1 crore, which was not so. This is the reason why the Superintending Engineer vide a memo dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure R-3/1) found that the Executive Engineer had erred grossly and ought not to have rejected the bid of respondent No.4. It is also clarified that respondent No.4 had been regularly enlisted since 2009 for any limit in Class I category, which had been renewed. Thus the limitation of enlistment upto 1 crore was not justified.

¶28

The petitioner had, however, rushed to this Court in the meantime and in terms of our order dated 04.02.2014, we had directed status quo as on date qua the tender to be maintained. The result is stated to be that the financial bid of respondent No.4 has still not been opened and it is yet to be determined whether the petitioner would continue to be L-1 or whether respondent No.4 would become L-1.

¶29

The matter does not end at this, as respondents No.1 to 3 now seek to plead that the petitioner did not have a valid enlistment certificate issued by their department. It is stated that if the petitioner is enlisted with some other department, that can facilitate enlistment with the respondent-department for which fee has to be deposited. However, the records produced before us do not show one way or the other the situation at hand because the certificate produced in the record pertained to enlistment of the petitioner with other department. It is not known as to how the petitioner would have been technically

¶30

[4]

¶31

CWP No.1943 of 2014

¶32

qualified if it was not enlisted. It is not in doubt that the bid of the petitioner was found to be technically valid and thereafter there is nothing on record to show that through any due process the petitioner has been disqualified on technical grounds, after giving him an opportunity to explain its case. The position, thus, as on date is that as per the records, the petitioner is qualified and so is respondent No.4 before us but the financial bid of respondent No.4 is yet to be opened.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has been technically qualified through an improper procedure after the financial bid of the petitioner was opened, is not borne out from the records, as obviously, respondent No.3 has committed a mistake as elicited by respondent No.2. Thus, remedial action was taken to technically qualify respondent No.4 and permit his financial bid to be opened, which is still not opened and sealed in view of our interim order.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order stands vacated.

¶35

( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

¶37

March 11, 2014 Rajan

Subodh Construction Company v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Construction Company v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kisan Icew & Cold Storage Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs UOI etc.

Amar Nath an Dors Vs State of Haryana and Orsd

Manav Samaj Sewa Swasth Sangthan (Regd) Vs State of Punjab and Others

Fairbuild Fabricators & Ors. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Shashi Pal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.