Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1130 (ALL)

RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2007-04-24

B.S.CHAUHAN, RAJES KUMAR

body2007
( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter/intimation dated 13. 04. 2007 issued by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure-1) and the remarks in the check list contained therein and for the direction to the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner in respect of package No. UP-5340, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and Bharat Nirman Yojana Phase-V. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claimed to be a registered contractor of Class-A submitted a tender for the work package No. UP-5340 of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. It is claimed that the tender was submitted along with all requisite documents including all experience certificates, balance sheet, profit and loss account, documents relating to earlier work done etc. As required under the terms of the tender, the petitioner submitted, the technical bid as well as financial bid. ( 3 ) THE petitioner received a letter/intimation dated 13. 04. 2007 issued/sent by the Superintending Engineer, Mirzapur Circle, Public Works Department (PWD),mirzapur intimating that technical bid has been found non-responsive by the Committee constituted by the State Government, as per clause of the Standard Bidding Document, financial bid of tender submitted by the petitioner is being returned in original without opening. The aforesaid letter was accompanied by the letter of the Chief Engineer respondent no. 3 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Eastern Zone, Public Works Department, Varanasi, respondent no. 4 dated 5. 4. 2007 check list and bid evaluation list. The aforesaid document is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per check list, technical bid is found non-responsive due to the points 6 (b), 10, 11 and 14. The point nos. 6 (b), 10, 11 and 14 along with remarks are reproduced below: 6- (b) Satisfactorily completed, as a Prime Contractor at least one similar work of 1/3 of the estimated cost. Rs. 110,13 Lacs work done not reported . Rs. 188. 28 Lacs 10. Availability of the key equipment for construction Owner-work, either owned, or on ship only lease or on hire, including for 3 equipments required for establishing field laboratory requirement para {4m 4b (b) of ITB As stated in the appendix to ITB Rollers. (Yes) (No) 11. Qualification and experience of key site sufficient management and technical person proposed for the contract as defined in sub clause 4, 4b- (b) (ii) of ITB for the construction. (Yes) (No) 11. Qualification and experience of key site sufficient management and technical person proposed for the contract as defined in sub clause 4, 4b- (b) (ii) of ITB for the construction. As stated in the appendix to ITB (Yes) (No) Not 14. Access to line of credit from the bank as provided in year old para 4. 2 (h) of ITB & as lacs. stated in qualification Information. Bank certificate in sample format given with qualiication information. For Rs. 34. 47 Lacs (Yes) (No) One 50 ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for coming to the conclusion that the technical bid is found non-responsive in respect of point Nos. 6 (b), 10, 11 and 14 is patently incorrect. He submitted that the certificate of the Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand, Public Works Department (PWD), Mirzapur dated 07. 11. 2006 certifying the work done for 188. 28 lacs had already been filed along with the application, which has not been considered. He further submitted that in respect of point nos. 10, 11 and 14, yes has not been cut and no has been cut and it appears that subsequently the comment has been made. In this regard, the explanations are in paragraph nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. ( 6 ) SRI C. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter requires fresh consideration by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the facts stated by the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, we direct the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 3 giving complete details with regard to the objection raised in the check list. The said representation be made within three days from today and the respondent no. 3 is directed to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order within another one week thereafter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. .