- (1.) THE respondents 1 to 4 had issued a notice inviting tender for handling contract at Port Blair Terminal, Port Blair, Andaman & Niccobar Islands for a period of one year, with an option for extension for additional two years. The minimum qualifying criteria specified in the said notice reads as follows: "8. MINIMUM QUALIFYING CRITERIA: (1) Minimum 3 years experience in similar nature of jobs which means experience in Handling/Housekeeping jobs at some petroleum handling/loading/unloading/processing installation/or any factory, port etc. (2) Proof of carrying out ONE NO above type of job with financial implication of Rs. 21.82 Lac in a single order during the period 01.07.05 to 30.06.2012 OR Proof of carrying out TWO NOS of above type of job with financial implication of minimum Rs. 13.64 Lac in each of TWO Orders during the period 01.07.05 to 30.06.2012 OR Proof of carrying out THREE NOS above type of job with financial implication of Rs. 10.91 Lac in each of THREE Orders during 01.07.05 to 30.06.2012 AND (3) Proof of Average Annual turnover of Rs. 24.55 Lac in last three preceding financial year viz 09-10, 10-11 and 11-12. (4) Documentary proof of PF registration and ESI registration (if applicable)".
(2.) THE petitioner, the respondent no. 6 and one other party responded to the said tender notice. Upon evaluation of the technical capabilities and financial offers, the respondents 1 to 4 selected the respondent no. 6 for the concerned job of handling contract. Selection of the respondent no. 6 by the respondents 1 to 4 forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent no. 6 did not satisfy the qualifying criteria for participation in the process of tender and, therefore, ought not to have been selected by the respondents 1 to 4. Referring to the minimum qualifying criteria extracted supra, he submitted that the respondent no. 6 lacks 3 years' experience in handling/housekeeping jobs at petroleum handling/loading/unloading/processing installation. Inviting the Court's attention to the certificates annexed by the respondent no. 6 to its counter affidavit, he contended that the same provided ample proof that the tender of the respondent no. 6 was deficient.
(3.) POINTING to pages 74 to 78 of the writ petition, being the format for the price bid, Mr. Banerjee further contended that even as per the documents relied on by the respondent no. 6 in support of its candidature, it does not have any experience of working on jetties and, therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 ought to have declared it ineligible.;