Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 127 (HP)

MAHESH CHANDER PURI v. STATE OF H. P.

2000-05-30

C.K.THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2000
JUDGMENT C. K. Thakker, C. J. (Oral): This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs in terms of para 20 which read as under: "(i)The respondents may be ordered to produce the relevant entire record of the case. (ii)Respondents No. 1 to 4 may be ordered to take decision on the representation of the petitioner, Annexure P-4 and notice Annexure P-6 etc. (iii)Respondents 1 to 4 may be directed to invite the petitioner for negotiation and take decision for allotment of this work in favour of the petitioner, he having submitted tender of lowest accumulated amount. (iv)Respondents 1 to 4 may be ordered not to accept the tender as submitted by respondent No. 5. (v)Any other writ, order or direction as this Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may deem fit, just and proper may also kindly be passed". 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, however, particularly in view of the fact that only respondent No. 5 was invited by the authorities for negotiation, though tenders were filled in by nine bidders, including the petitioner, we were of the opinion that it would be in the larger public interest if the State Government would invite all the bidders and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We, therefore, made a suggestion to the learned Advocate General to that effect. He, no doubt, submitted that the action taken by the State authorities could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law but he fairly stated that the light of later development and the suggestion of the Court, he would place the matter before the highest authority. Today, the learned Advocate General stated that the court may pass an appropriate order which the State Government would accept. 3. The State Government has filed an affidavit of Sh. Bodh Raj Abrol. Superintending Engineer, National Highway, Shahpur Circle, HP, taking a view that pursuant to the notice inviting tenders, dated 27.11.1999 for the works of "Widening of formation to two lane providing road side structure and Cross-drainage work on PCM road NH-20 Km. 160/0 to 165/0 (except stretch between Km. 161/930 to 162/450 (S H: Construction of formation cutting R/wall, B/wall, cross-drainage and demolition of existing culverts)", in all nine "A" class contractors submitted their tenders. 4. Sh. 160/0 to 165/0 (except stretch between Km. 161/930 to 162/450 (S H: Construction of formation cutting R/wall, B/wall, cross-drainage and demolition of existing culverts)", in all nine "A" class contractors submitted their tenders. 4. Sh. R. K. Mahajans offer was the lowest, i.e. Rs.1,94,26,502/- followed by the offer of Sh. R. P. DhimanforRs.l,98,99,693/-andthepetiuoner,M/s.S.R.M. construction, was found to be third lowest i.e. Rs.2,02,33,351/-. 5. A further stand of the State is that pursuant to the directions dated 11.2.2000 of this Court, the petitioner was invited for negotiations, who submitted his revised offer which was not considered as the petitioner was not the lowest tenderer and that the consideration of the petitioners revised offer would result into discrimination vis-a- vis the remaining seven tenderers who had submitted their offer pursuant to the Notice Invited Tenders, as none of them have been allowed to participate in the negotiations. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits on the stand taken by the parties and the issue raised during the course of the arguments, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, in order to ensure absolute transparency in the award of tenders, in public interest and in interest of the public exchequer, keeping in view the tender amount, it would be in the interests of justice that respondent No. 2 calls upon all the nine tenderers to submit their revised price bid in sealed cover to participate in the negotiations before the Negotiation Committee. 7. The members of the committee, as informed by the Advocate General on instructions, would comprise of: 1. Chief Engineer, N. H. Chairman 2. S.E.D.(III) 3. Executive Engineer (d) N.H. (North) 4. S.E. National Highway, Shahpur 5. Executive Engineer, N, H. Division Jogindernagar. 6. Joint Controller (Finance & Accounts). 8. It is accordingly directed that respondent No. 2 would call upon all the persons who had offered their bid pursuant to the NTT for negotiations. The competent authority shall finalise the exercise and award the contract in accordance with the terms of the tender within a period of one month. 9. The writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. Costs on parties. CMP No. 81 of 2000 10. In view of the disposal of the writ petition itself, this application also stands disposed of and the interim order passed on 29.2.2000 is vacated Dasti copy on usual terms.