Abdul Ghani, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to award the tender in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petitioner happens to be a partnership firm under the name and style of 'M/s. ABC Company' having its registration certificate with the A & N Command and Andaman Public Works Department as also having experience in house keeping and conservancy services. THE petitioner also holds the CST number issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. THE respondent authorities initially published a tender notice on 2nd November, 2009 for providing unskilled manpower for external conservancy services to Air Force Station, Car Nicobar and the petitioner having all qualifications participated in the said tender, but the said tender was retendered on 4th January, 2010 and the petitioner accordingly participated in the said tender. But, unfortunately the respondent authorities for some undisclosed reasons cancelled both the tenders dated 2nd November, 2009 and 4th January, 2010 by notification dated 28th January, 2010. THEreafter, on 14th February, 2010 the respondent authorities again published a fresh tender for the same work and the petitioner like previous occasions participated in the said tender also. When the tender was opened, it was found that only two firms i.e. the petitioner and another firm, namely, M/s. G. Satyanarayan participated in the said tender process. It would appear that the respondent authorities being nos.1 to entered appearance in the instant proceeding and submitted affidavit-in-opposition explaining the reasons for tender, re-tender and cancellation of the same. The respondent no.5 M/s. G. Satyanarayan despite receiving notice did not turn up to submit anything before this Court. It would be pertinent to point out that the petitioner ultimately did not file any reply to the affidavit-inopposition furnished from the end of the respondent authorities. Mr. Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner while making submission drew this Court's attention to the contents of a copy of the tender document dated 2nd March, 2010 submitted by his client as also some other documents and emphatically argued that despite fulfillment of all requisites in respect of the tender, his client has been improperly and arbitrarily deprived of the tender work and as such, as per advertisement the tender works should be provided to his client.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities while arguing the case drew this Court's pointed attention to the said tender documents dated 2nd March, 2010 submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner as also some other documents including the open tender enquiry as well as the findings (Annexure R-8) in a prescribed form dated 04.3.2010 and emphatically urged that the writ petitioner having failed to comply with the requirements indicated in technical bid as also financial bid as embodied in the tender form has lost its entitlement to the work order although its bid amount was Rs.95,093/- per month i.e. lower than the bid amount of M/s. G. Satyanarayan, MES Contractor, Car Nicobar. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities strenuously argued and submitted that due to discrepancies detected in the matter of furnishing particulars as also for non-fulfillment of the conditions of the tender form for obtaining work order the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Evidently, the tender work has not yet been provided to the private respondent No.5 (M/s. G. Satyanarayan) or to any other firm. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also on perusal of the materials on record it could be detected that out of the four tenderers, only two firms viz. the petitioner and M/s. G. Satyanarayan responded, other two firms viz. M/s. Vedam Company, Port Blair and M/s. AC Constructions, Port Blair did not respond. It has already been indicated above that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to controvert the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities. In the body of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondent authorities reasons for fresh tender, re-tender and cancellation of the same have been well indicated. While opening the tenders of both the bidders, BOO observed the following discrepancies in the prescribed form in the column of findings dated 04.3.2010 (Annexure R-8):- Sl No. Name of Firm/Vendor Discrepancies Bid amount pm(Rs.) Remarks 1. M/s ABC Company, Port Blair(L1) (a) Technical Bid: (i) No (R) No details were mentioned in Technical bid application. (ii) Details of manpower to be employed and willingness certificate were not attached. (b) Financial Bid: Details of possession of own vehicle was not endorsed. 95,039/- Due to the compulsion emerged by the information reflected by the petitioner in his Technical bid, the Financial bid was opened. However, non completion of Technical bid by the firm was a deliberate act. 2. Mr. G.Satyanarayana Carnicobar(L2) (a) Both the bids were submitted under one envelope, (b) Details of vehicle not mentioned in technical bid application. However, the contractor attached the relevant vehicle possession documents. (c) Details of manpower to be employed and willingness certificate were not attached. 1,16,000/ The firm submitted two bids in single envelope only. The details of vehicle were not mentioned but the proof of ownership of vehicle was submitted. It appears that the firm did not understand the language of the tender notice but submitted the relevant documents in single envelope.;