Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner firms have approached this Court being aggrieved of the rejection of their tenders for operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Station in furtherance of N.I.T. Specification No. AJD/SE/TW/TN-291-302 floated by the A.V.V.N.L. on 14.6.2017.
(2.) At the outset learned counsel Mr. Sajjan Singh stated that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 have already been awarded other work contracts under the fresh tenders issued by the respondents and thus he seeks to pursue the writ petition to the extent of the petitioner no.1 only.
(3.) The petitioner M/s. Shri Devnarayan ElectricalsCompany claims to have filed its bid for providing labour to the procuring entity in furtherance of the N.I.T. dated 14.6.2017 and its bid was found to be lowest amongst all bidders. Initially the writ petition was filed in order to challenge the cancellation of the entire tender process vide order Annex.-6 dated 10.7.2017 but respondents floated a fresh N.I.T. dated 11.8.2017 for the very same work. Thereupon, this Court passed an order dated 25.8.2017 allowing the petitioners to participate in the fresh N.I.T. while directing the respondents to treat the previously deposited earnest money to be deposited in the fresh tender process. Thereupon fresh tender process was undertaken, and the petitioner M/s. Shri Devnarayan Elec.Co. was declared to be the lowest bider in terms of the rates offered by it. The other two petitioners were awarded the work orders. However, despite the petitioner No.1's bid being found to be the lowest, the respondents did not consider the same and did not issue the work order. Upon this the petitioner filed I.A. No. 610/2018 praying for a direction to the respondents to issue the LOI/work order in favour of petitioner M/s. Shri Devnarayan Elec. Co. The respondents have filed reply to the writ application taking recourse of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and have countered the claim of the petitioner for being awarded the work order in question on the pretext that the labour rates quoted by the petitioner in the tender process did not meet the requirements of Act of 1948 and thus the petitioner's bid was liable to be rejected. The respondents have submitted a calculation chart Annex-R-17 of the labour charges in terms of the Act of 1948 and have calculated the applicable minimum wages to be paid to three labourers at Rs. 28422.62 per month whereas the rate quoted by the petitioner is only Rs. 26,899/- and on this pretext the respondents claim that the petitioner is disqualified in the questioned bid process as its rates are not in consonance with the Minimum Wages Act.;