PARIDA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-3-1
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 03,2020

PARIDA CONSTRUCTIONS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K.Mishra, J. - (1.) A detailed tender call notice was invited on 06.07.2018 under National Competitive Bidding Through e-procurement for construction of HL Bridge Lune-Karandia near Dihabalarampur on Tikanpur-Dalanta Stand works by opposite party No.2. The date and time of opening of the tender (Technical bid) was 10.08.2018 at 11.00A.M. One of the eligibility conditions as per Detailed Tender Call Notice (in short DTCN ) vide Clause- 2.1(5) was that the intending tender should have the total financial turn over in respect of the Civil Engineering Works of an amount not less than the amount put to tender (as in Col.3 of the Table) during any 3 (three) financial years taken together of the last proceeding five financial years (starting from 2013-14 to 2017-18 excluding the current financial year). The financial turn over certificate for Civil Engineering Works was required to be submitted from the Charted Accountant showing clearly the financial turn over financial year wise. It was also stipulated vide Clause 2.1 that the tenderer not fulfilling the eligibility criteria could submit the tender on his own risk, as the tender would summarily be rejected. The petitioner, a super class contractor, submitted his bid application Online with documents including Annual Turn Over certificate from Charted Accountant. The approximate cost was Rs.45,70,54,874/-. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.09.2018 opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 evaluated the technical bid and found the petitioner qualified and accordingly, he was informed in the official Website on 18.09.2018. Financial bid was opened on 19.09.2018 and petitioner?s firm was found to have quoted the lowest amount amongst four bidders. But on 11.10.2018 opposite party No.3 intimated that tender had been rejected during Technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason Disqualified? vide Annexure-1. Averring that the act of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in disqualifying the petitioner after finding him qualified in the Technical bid is illegal and violative of statutory provision of law, the prayer is made in this writ petition to quash Annexure-1 the letter dated 11.10.2018 disqualifying the petitioner and Detailed Tender Call Notice (in short DTCN) vide Annexure-3 and also allow the petitioner to execute the work.
(2.) Opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4, the State and State Authorities, in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner was not eligible for having not met the total financial turnover required under Clause 2.1(5) of General Instructions to Tenderers and by mistake he was found eligible which was rectified after receiving a complaint from opposite party No.5 and such bonafide mistake was communicated without any malafide.
(3.) Opposite party No.5 (Intervener), one of the bidders filed counter affidavit stating therein that petitioner was not eligible due to inadequate Annual Turnover (in short ATO ) as furnished by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.