AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sharma, J.—This writ petition was moved on 22.2.99. On that day notice of motion was issued with an interim order till returnable date directing the concerned parties to maintain status quo, as on that day, as regards the work order No. SMC/PCC/TENDER/1069/98/46 dated 3.2.99(Annexure-7) and 8.3.99 was fixed for admission.
In this writ petition Petitioner has challenged the award of the contract to the Respondent No. 4 by the State Government, where both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 remained in the fray. The dispute is purely between two tenderers wherein Petitioner claims that Petitioner was recommended by the Tender Committee as well as by the Selection Committee but the Respondent Government, the final deciding authority, awarded the contract to the Respondent No. 4 who was found financially unsound by the respective committees in the process of selection. Petitioner claims that it has the reasonable expectation to get the contract having fulfilled the required conditions as per the NIT. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Government by a cryptic order awarded the contract to Respondent No. 4 on two grounds- a) as the lowest tenderer and b) as a Central Government Company. Petitioner alleges that this process of passing the final order by the Government is vitiated by the infirmity and fair play. It is further alleged that as the final decision making authority the Government failed to examine the records and the suggestion/recommendations of the Committees made in favour of the Petitioner.
On 12.3.99 Rule was issued and the court decided to hear the writ petition as the same was ready after exchange of affidavits by respective parties, alongwith the application for vacating the stay order. From the orders of the Government it is seen that the main consideration for awarding the contract to Respondent No. 4 was that Respondent No. 4 offered the lowest bid. Regarding the financial soundness of Respondent No. 4 Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General submits that the Government considered the Respondent No. 4 as a fit bidder being a Public Sector Construction Company under the Ministry of Steel and Mines Govt, of India, that the Respondent No. 4 is in operation for more than three decades and to its credit executed orders valuing Rs. 5,500.00 crores including Bokaro Steel Plant or the Steel Authority of India Limited and other Public Sector undertakings, engaging in its roll more than twelve hundred experienced engineers and three thousand trained supervisors and Technicians and the Respondent No. 4 has completed huge projects in foreign countries. It is further submitted that the alleged unsoundness of the Respondent No. 4 is due to some unavoidable reasons which are always natural happening in such business. Further referring to the work presently undertaken by the Respondent No. 4 learned Advocate General submits that being a globally famous Government concern the Respondent No. 4 recoups its financial position and is working in various huge projects to the satisfaction of the concerned parties and even, it is claimed, Nationalised Banks offer their credit facilities to the Respondent No. 4 It is also submitted that many other companies joined with the Respondent No. 4 in carrying out joint-venture projects. That, in view of these considerations the Respondent Government has given the contract to the Respondent No. 4, as besides being lowest bidder the Respondent No. 4 was found fill in all other respect and therefore, was directed to execute the agreement. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4 has offered Bank Guarantee of Rs. 80 Crores against the contract value of Rs. 69 Crores. This factual position regarding financial soundness have been asserted by the Respondent No. 4 in their affidavit-in- opposition. It was also submitted that the Selection Committee also recommended the name of the Respondent No. 4 company.
Apparently, it is not a case where mala fide or collateral motives have been alleged against the Government. The only ground is financial unsoundness of the Respondent No. 4 and, therefore, did not fulfil the qualifying criteria as per the NIT. The Respondent Government at the time of granting the award examined the records. While the authority consider to offer contract, it requires, to be guided by some considerations-1) the price at which the other side is willing to do the work, 2) whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications, 3) whether the persons tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specification, 4) past experience of the tenderer relating to similar work done. 5) time of proper completion and 6) ability to take follow up action, and if the authority concerned is satisfied, nothing, remains for judicial review of its consideration to award contract, more so, when there is no allegation of ulterior motive or mala fide (Relied on Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others,
Decision to award contract to Respondent No. 4 admittedly involves public interest though it is a commercial transaction. Court cannot presume that Government action is against public interest in awarding the contract when the construction of the Secretariat Building was commissioned for public purpose. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that continuation of the stay order passed by this Court on 22.2.99 shall affect the progress of the construction of the Capital complex within the scheduled time which is against public interest as huge money of the Central Government is involved. The completion of the work in question within the reasonable time, i.e within 36 months is very necessary and delay in work shall result escalation of price and time and it will be detrimental to public interest to stay the work.
For the reasons above, the stay order dated 22.2.99 passed by this Court is vacated forthwith. The judgment follows.