RANGANATHAN - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award of a contract by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPC), an instrumentality of the State of Karnataka, in favour of the Mysore Construction Co. (MCC). His writ petition and a further writ appeal in the Karnataka High Court having been unsuccessful, he has preferred this Special Leave Petition from the judgment of the High Court in the writ appeal. We have heard counsel for both sides at length. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(2.) THOUGH, at an earlier stage of the proceedings there were some allegations of favouritism, the plea of the petitioner, as urged before us, is that the KPC should not at all have entertained the tender of MCC as the MCC did not fulfill certain preliminary requirements which, under the Notification Inviting Tenders (NIT), had to be fulfilled even before the forms of tender could be supplied to any intending contractor. The contract pertained to the construction of a Main Station Building of a Power House at the Raichur Thermal Power Plant at an estimated cost of about Rs. 1.8 crores. The NIT dated 27-12-1988 invited tenders from registered contractors of appropriate class. Paragraph I of the notification listed three "Minimum qualifying requirements" viz., that the intending tenderer: (1) should have executed civil and architectural works including insulation in a power plant/ industrial complex, preferably in power plant; (2) should have executed at least 1000 cubic metres per month of concrete pouring at least 300 cubic metres per month of brick work at one site; and (3) should have had an annual turnover of at least 1 crore for each of the preceding three years. Para V required the intending tenderers to furnish the following information "along with the application for issue of blank tender books", namely: (a) Audited Balance Sheet/ Certificate from Chartered Accountant for, preceding three years; (b) Latest income-tax clearance certificate; (c) Copy of the Registration Certificate; (d) Annual output of the works of all the above nature at any site accompanied by a certificate from the organisation for whom the tenderer had carried out the works furnishing details such 'as rate of pouring ofconcrete, manufacturing of hollow concrete blocks, precast concrete blocks... .etc., and period of completion scheduled/ envisaged, equipments and their deployment i.e., man months etc. The NIT specified 17/01/1989, as the last date for receipt of application forms for issue of blank tender books. The issue of blank tender books was to be between 23rd January to 27th January, 1989 and the completed tender books had to be submitted by 3-00 p. m. on 6-2-89. It is common ground, however, that subsequently this time frame was altered. The last date for receipt of application form for issue of blank tender books remained as 17/01/1989 but the other items were altered to read as follows: JUDGEMENT_488_2_1990Html1.htm
(3.) IT appears that six parties applied for tender books. These were scrutinised with reference to the pre-qualifying requirements and date on experience, work done etc. as furnished by each of the applicants. Four of the firms were found to be pre-qualified by the Chief Engineer and tender books were issued to them. Only three of them, however, submitted completed, tender books by 27/02/1989. These tenders were examined by the Chief Engineer as well as an independent firm of Engineering Consultants, namely, Tata Consulting Engineers (TCE). Both the Chief Engineer as well as TCE recommended acceptance of the tender of MCC (which was the lowest tender) in view of the fact that MCC had adequate experience in the construction of RCC works and they were capable of mobilising the work-force required. for the work. IT may be mentioned that after making necessary adjustments 'IT was found that the tender of MCC was Rs. 15 lacs less than the tender of the petitioner. The principal argument advanced on. behalf of the petitioner is that paragraphs I and V of the NIT specified certain prequalifying requirements. Unless these requirements were fulfilled, the contractor was not even entitled to be supplied with a set of tender documents. It is submitted that MCC did not comply with these requirements and hence its application for tender forms should have been rejected at the outset.;