Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 721 (JHR)

Triveni Enterprises v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-07-20

R.K.MERATHIA

body2004
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner prays for quashing the decision of the Tender Committee dated 31.5.2004 whereby and whereunder respondent No. 7 has been awarded the work. 3. Petitioners case is that work has been awarded in arbitrary and illegal manner; violating the policy and circulars, only to favour respondent No. 7. Petitioners further case is that priority is to be given to the tenderer having experience of similar work. Moreover a local tenderer is to be given priority, if other matters are identical. It is submitted that petitioner fulfilled all the. criteria including the aforesaid criteria of having experience of similar work and of being a local contractor. It is further submitted that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 7 as per the seniority list maintained by the Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.B.L. International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and submitted that in an appropriate case, writ Court can go into the disputed facts and the evidences if it is satisfied that the impugned action is arbitrary. 5. Learned State counsel and counsel for the respondent No. 7 submitted that as per the tender notice the concrete lining work was to be done by certain specified plant and machinery and as per the specifications. 6. With reference to Annexure 13 to the counter affidavit filed by the State (which is the impugned decision dated 31.5.2004 of the Tender Committee) it is submitted that all the relevant matters were considered by the Committee. Petitioner is a local contractor was also considered by the Committee. It was found that respondent No. 7 has got the specified plant and machinery required for the work in question and there is good progress in another work, which was being done by respondent No. 7 with such plant and machinery. The Committee also found that respondent No. 7 was senior also amongst remaining four tenderers, who were ultimately under consideration. With reference to the rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No, 7, it was submitted that admittedly petitioner does not have the specified plant and machinery, 7. The Committee also found that respondent No. 7 was senior also amongst remaining four tenderers, who were ultimately under consideration. With reference to the rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No, 7, it was submitted that admittedly petitioner does not have the specified plant and machinery, 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 relied on judgments of Apex Court in Sterling Computer Ltd. v, M/s. M & N Publication Ltd. and Ors., (1993)1 SCC 445 and in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters. 8. There is allegations and counter, allegations between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 about non-completion of other works awarded to them. In my opinion those allegations are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. 9. After hearing the parties. I am satisfied that the decision making process under challenge is not arbitrary, illegal or irrational. There is a dispute whether petitioner has got experience of similar work or not. However, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 7 has got the specified plant and machinery. 10. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is not the condition of notice inviting tender that a tenderer must have the said plant and machinery in his possession. 11. In my opinion, choosing a contractpr, who has specified plant and machinery and who is doing similar work by such plant and machinery, over a contractor, who may acquire them after he is selected, cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary, specially in view of the fact that the work is to be completed within a period of 24 months. Moreover, if all other matters are identical, only then the local contractor is to be given preference. But, as noticed above, petitioner and respondent No. 7 are not on equal footing so far as clauses 15 and 22 of Notice inviting tender are concerned, The committee after, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a local contractor, awarded work order to respondent No. 7 on the ground that respondent No. 7 is doing similar work with specified plant and machinery :in which there is a good progress. Though, petitioner was excluded on the other work allotted to it is continuing, but the committee has taken into account the overall situation, and other relevant matters. 12. In the result, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.