S K MAIMOM Vs. MANIPUR STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the authorities had changed the estimated cost of work notified in the tender at the time of award of the contract which is impermissible in law.

(2.) The Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency (MSSRDA) is the agency of the State of Manipur for construction and maintenance of Rural Roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), impleaded as respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 issued notice inviting item rate tender through eprocurement for 50 work packages in various districts of Manipur of PMGSY phase VIII packages from eligible contractors as indicated in the said Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.10.2012. The petitioner submitted bids in respect of many of the work packages including Work Package No.MNO 941, Huishu to K.Phungrei Part1 of the PMGSY/Phase-VIII appearing at Sl.No.37 of the NIT, relating to which the present dispute has arisen. As per the aforesaid NIT, the total estimated cost put to tender in respect of the said Package No.MNO 941, Huishu to K.Phungrei Part-1, has been shown as Rs.555.00 lakhs. According to the petitioner, after following due process of the tender process, as required under the Instruction to Bidders made available to all the tenderers, the respondent No.1 generated the standing of the bidders by E-tendering application software of PMSGY in respect of the said package and the petitioner was placed as the lowest (L 1) among 9 (nine) bidders having quoted Rs.5,27,24,999.49. On the other hand, respondent No.3 to whom the contract work was ultimately awarded was placed at 4th lowest, having quoted Rs.5,27,36,027.54.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as the estimated cost put to tender as mentioned in the NIT dated 15.10.2012 was Rs.555.00 lakhs, the bid of the petitioner was 5.0% below the said amount whereas the bid of respondent No.3 was 4.980% below the said amount. Accordingly, since the bid of the petitioner was the lowest and also exactly at (-5.0%) which is the permissible limit in terms of the standard bidding document, the petitioner was expecting that the work will be awarded to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in clause 29.1 of the Instruction to Bidders (ITB) as provided in the Standard Bidding Document, the criteria for awarding the work has been mentioned, which is reproduced hereinbelow: