- (1.) The petitioners have sought to question, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the legality of two orders dated 12 July 2013 and 15 July 2013 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and by the Director and Chief Engineer in the Rural Engineering Department of the U.P. Rural Roads Development Agency to withdraw a tender enquiry and to initiate the process of inviting fresh tenders.
(2.) Bids were invited on 17 December 2012 by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Agra Circle, Agra to an e-procurement notice for the construction of roads and their maintenance, under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). The notice was for the district of Mathura in seven packages. A corrigendum was published to the effect that those contractors who had either on their own or on lease gas operated Hot Mixed Plant within the Taj Trapezium Zone located not more than 50 kms. from the site of work or a diesel operated Hot Mixed Plant outside the TTZ area, located at a distance of not less than 50 kms. from the site, would qualify. The bids were opened and were evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Financial bids were opened and it was found that the bid submitted by the first petitioner was the lowest bid for four packages while the bid submitted by the second petitioner was the lowest bid for the remaining three packages.
(3.) The National Rural Roads Development Agency of the Union Ministry of Rural Development, which is the supervisory authority, deputed a team of two independent monitors following the receipt of a number of complaints about irregularity in the evaluation or award of PMGSY projects in the State during February-April 2013. These complaints, inter alia, pertain to the projects at Mathura and Bulandshahr districts. The two member team submitted its report on 2 May 2013 and found that there were serious irregularities in the evaluation process. The report incorporated various suggestions. Following this, the National Rural Roads Development Agency addressed a communication dated 18 June 2013 to the Principal Secretary (Rural Development) of the State calling for the fixation of responsibility and exemplary action against the officers found involved. The communication stated as follows : "As you are aware, a large number of complaints about irregularities in evaluation/award of PMGSY Projects in the State were received at NRRDA during February-April, 2013. Many of these complaints pertain to the projects of Mathura and Bulandshahr districts. It was decided to depute a team of two NQMs to enquire into the allegations pertaining to the projects of these two districts. 2. Accordingly, a team of two NQMs namely Shri M.S. Chauhan, formerly Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh and Shri S.L. Jadhav, formerly Secretary (PWD), Government of Maharashtra, had conducted the enquiry during 29th April - 02nd May, 2013 and sent the report. A copy of the enquiry report is forwarded for urgent corrective action, as the procurement of works is responsibility of the State Government. Copy of further letters received from various sources as per Annexure-I are also enclosed for appropriate action. 3. As can be seen from the findings, out of the three complaints pertaining to Bulandshahr district, the enquiry team has observed that the tender evaluation committee has erred in evaluation of bids in two of the three cases. For the projects of Mathura district, seven complaints were received and the common allegations were that the authorities had favoured particular bidders in award of works and that the other bidders had been purposefully disqualified. The enquiry team has found that the allegations are broadly substantiated. 4. The findings of the enquiry team point out serious concerns in the procurement process for PMGSY projects in the State. Therefore, I request you to take immediate corrective actions on the findings including further enquiry, if required. Based on the findings, the State may fix up the responsibility in each of these cases and take exemplary action against the officers found involved in committing irregularities, even if redressal has been done or retendering ordered after enquiry. 5. I am sure the stern action taken against the guilty would act as a deterrent for others willfully trying to influence the procurement process under PMGSY. The action taken in this regard may please be shared with us at the earliest.";