M/s. Prayag Construction and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Undisputedly, as per the condition No. 4.4.A of the Instructions to Bidders, every bidder must have satisfactorily completed, as prime contractor, at least similar work equal in value half of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which the bid is invited; Cost of present work is Rs. 4.67 crore; As per Annexure No. 6 (experience certificate of the petitioner), the petitioner has completed construction work of the road of Rs. 2.86 crore; Rs. 2.86 crore is more than fifty per cent cost of the work in question.

Technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did the work of Rs. 2.86 crore for construction and maintenance, therefore, amount of Rs. 2.86 crore cannot be considered for the construction work only, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have completed construction work of fifty per cent of the cost of present work.

Perusal of Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition reveals that the total valuation of the earlier contract for construction and maintenance of Badeth-Pindwali Motor Road was Rs. 3,00,53,435/- and entire construction work of the road was completed by the petitioner by 24.5.2010. It further reveals that the cost of construction made by the petitioner was Rs. 2.86 crore.

Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel countered with Annexure No. 6 could not explain as to why Rs. 2.86 crore was treated for construction as well as for maintenance of the road in view of the fact that as per the Annexure No. 6, Rs. 2.86 crore was for the construction of the work till 24.5.2010 out of total value of contract of Rs. 3,00,53,435/-.

In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, prima facie, petitioner''s technical bid was wrongly rejected under the wrong conception.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 & 6 by Registered Post AD in addition to normal mode of service.

Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.

Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that contract has not been awarded as yet in favour of respondent nos. 5 & 6.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that contract in question shall not be awarded to respondent nos. 5 & 6 till further orders of this Court.

CLMA No. 5212 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.