- (1.) All the aforesaid three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in these three cases is the same. Facts giving rise to these three cases are being given herein under: W.P.C. No. 526 of 2014. 1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited vide its Reference No. BCCL/CED/TC/NIT37/ 201314/ 967 dated 20/21.09.2013, issued a tender notice inviting applications from eligible bidders for construction of multistoried (G+ 8) BType, CType and DType quarters at Jagjivan Nagar CCWO Colony for the estimated amount of Rs. 345,62,82,879.10/. Through corrigendum the estimated cost was enhanced to Rs. 349,20,06,739.20/. As per the case of the petitioner, since the estimated cost was huge, a Joint Venture firm was formed in the name and style as SUPREMEDEV PL (JV) by executing a Joint Venture Agreement on 30/10/2013, consisting of two firms namely M/s SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD and M/s DEV MULTICOM PVT LTD. The petitioner as well as two other joint venture firms namely KCPLUNITY (JV) and INDU INFRASTRUCTURE LTD submitted their bid papers pursuant to NIT. On 15.11.2013, technical bid was opened, whereby M/s INDU INFRASTRUCTURE LTD was found to be nonresponsive. Subsequently, the price bid of only KCPLUNITY (JV) was opened, whereas the price bid of the petitioner was not opened on account of the fact that an order had been passed by the Tender Committee on 27.11.2013 in connection with the matter relating to the tender in which GopalkaDevJV, had participated and on account of some act of forgery being committed the said firm and its partners were debarred from participating in future bid and also from the bid pending for consideration. The detail of it would be narrated lateron. W.P.C. No. 532 of 2014
(2.) Similarly, the Bharat Coking Coal Limited vide its Reference No. BCCL/GM (CMC)/FHEMMOS/ 2013/1129, dated 14.08.2013, issued a Tender Notice No. 136n inviting applications from the eligible bidders for the works of hiring of HEMM for removal of over burden and extraction and transportation of coal from Bhowra(s) Colliery. Since, according to the case of the petitioner, the price value was quite high, a Joint Venture firm was formed in the name and style as ATDEV PL (JV) (Petitioner) by executing a deed of Joint Venture Agreement on 20.09.2013. It consists of two firms namely M/s AVINASH TRANSPORT and M/s DEV MULTICOM PVT LTD. The petitioner as well as three other firms namely SUPLBLA( JV), MALA KUMAR (JV) and R.K. TRANSPORT, submitted bid papers. Initially when the technical bid was opened on 25.09.2013, SUPLBLA (JV), MALA KUMAR (JV), were found to be nonresponsive, whereas the petitioner and R.K.TRANSPORT, were found to be responsive. However, subsequently, when some relaxations were made the aforesaid two firms were also found to have been qualified. On 24.12.2013, the price bid was opened of the others but not of the petitioner and then on 31.12.2013, SUPLBLA (JV) was found to be L1. Upon it, the petitioner filed a representation. Subsequently, the petitioner could know that the price bid of it was not opened for the same reason that the said firm M/s GOPALKADEV (JV) and its partners were debarred from participating in future bid and also from the bid pending for consideration. W.P.C. No. 533 of 2014
(3.) Likewise, the Bharat Coking Coal Limited vide its Reference No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/FHEMMOS/ 2013/1093, dated 31.07.2013, issued a Tender Notice inviting applications from the eligible bidders for the works of hiring of HEMM for removal of over burden, extraction and transportation of coal from Dhansar Colliery. Since, as per the case of the petitioner, the estimated value of the work was quite high, a Joint Venture was formed in the name and style of ATDEV PL (JV) (Petitioner) on 31.08.2013, by executing a deed of Joint Venture Agreement consisting of two firms namely M/s AVINASH TRANSPORT and M/s DEV MULTICOM PVT LTD. Apart from the petitioner, four other bidders namely M/s SAAKARMASS (JV), M/S MALA KUMAR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., M/S KEM & BKK JV DIEM FIRM and M/S DHANSAR ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD submitted bid papers. On 07.09.2013, technical bid was opened. On 28.11.2013, it was intimated to all that the price bid would be opened on 02.12.2013. On that day perhaps it was not opened, rather it was opened on 23.12.2013 of other but not of the petitioner and, thereby, M/s Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd was found to be L1. Immediately thereafter a representation was filed by the petitioner, but no response was made. However, it could be known to the petitioner that the price bid of the petitioner was not opened for the same reason, which has been stated in the aforesaid two cases, the detail of which is being given herein under: M/s DEV MULTICOM PVT LTD had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shashi Kant Gopalka and a Joint Venture Firm in the name and style of M/s GOPALKADEV (JV) had been formed for the purpose of securing contracts against the notice inviting tender no. BCCL/CED/TC/NIT8/ 201314/ 66 dated 23.04.2013. After forming Joint Venture the said form participated in the tender process during which M/s GOPALKADEV (JV) had submitted a certificate showing its credentials, which, upon verification, were found to be forged. Finding such an act of forgery, a show cause was issued upon M/s GOPALKADEV. In response to that show cause, a reply was submitted on 24.08.2013, which was found to be unsatisfactory and, hence, an order was passed on 27.11.2013 for black listing the said joint venture M/s GOPALKADEV and also its individual partner namely M/s Shashi Kant Gopalka and M/s Dev Multicom Pvt. Ltd and at the same time the Joint Venture company and also the individual partners were disqualified from participating in all other pending tenders of BCCL. On account of that, the price bids of the aforesaid three petitioners were not considered in spite of they being found to be the responsive in technical bid. In that event, aforesaid three writ applications have been filed.;