i.V.R. Construction Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - also considered the report of the committee of respondent no, 1 by which (he petitioner's case was recommended for allotment of work.orderdr. b.p. saraf, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. perused the affidavit and minutes of the board meeting. also considered the report of the committee of respondent no, 1 by which (he petitioner's case was recommended for allotment of work. there is no dispute about the fact that not only the petitioner company but respondent no. 3 was also not eligible as per the eligibility criteria the eligibility criteria was relaxed in case of respondent no. 3 and not in case of the petitioner. our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for to petitioner to the fact that the petitioner has the experience of laying down 2,000 mm diameter pipe line for more than 5 km. as against the eligibility requirement of 3 km. only disqualification of the petitioner company pointed out by respondent no. 1 was that it fell short of experience by one year. so far as respondent no. 3 company is concerned, there is a categorical finding that it fell short of qualifying requirement pertaining to laying down large diameter length i.e. 3 km. of 2,000 mm diameter pipe line, service period/experience completion of the system prescribed in the tender. respondent no. 1, however, waived the requirement in case of respondent no. 3 only on the ground that its tender was lower than the petitioners by rs. 43,28,316/-. after hearing the learned advocate general and the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the only consideration that weighed in the mind of respondent no. 1 to accept tender of respondent no. 3 was the lower amount offered by respondent no. 3. our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the facts that the request made by respondent no. 3 to relax the eligibility criteria has been rejected by the board by its communication dated 19-2-1998. nothing could be shown to us as to why its case was reconsidered.2. we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioner was prepared to reduce the price quoted by it and the period of completion. we also asked the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 whether respondent no. 3 was also prepared to reduce the price quoted by it and also the period of completion. we were informed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that respondent no. 3 did not want to participate in this process and was not prepared to reduce either the price quoted or the period. the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, informed that the petitioner was prepared to reduce substantially both the price and the period.3. considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue rule and pass interim order in terms of prayer clause (c). respondents waive service.4. the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 stated before us that pendency of this writ petition should not come in the way of respondent no. 1 either reconsidering the entire matter afresh and to take the fresh decision or to invite fresh tenders. we clarify accordingly.5. mr. mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 prays for stay ofthis order. we do not find any cogent reason to do so. prayer is rejected.

Judgment:
ORDER

Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the affidavit and minutes of the Board meeting. Also considered the report of the Committee of respondent No, 1 by which (he petitioner's case was recommended for allotment of work. There is no dispute about the fact that not only the petitioner company but respondent No. 3 was also not eligible as per the eligibility criteria The eligibility criteria was relaxed in case of respondent No. 3 and not in case of the petitioner. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for to petitioner to the fact that the petitioner has the experience of laying down 2,000 mm diameter pipe line for more than 5 km. as against the eligibility requirement of 3 km. Only disqualification of the petitioner company pointed out by respondent No. 1 was that it fell short of experience by one year. So far as respondent No. 3 company is concerned, there is a categorical finding that it fell short of qualifying requirement pertaining to laying down large diameter length i.e. 3 km. of 2,000 mm diameter pipe line, service period/experience completion of the system prescribed in the tender. Respondent No. 1, however, waived the requirement in case of respondent No. 3 only on the ground that its tender was lower than the petitioners by Rs. 43,28,316/-. After hearing the learned Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the only consideration that weighed in the mind of respondent No. 1 to accept tender of respondent No. 3 was the lower amount offered by respondent No. 3. Our attention was also drawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to the facts that the request made by respondent No. 3 to relax the eligibility criteria has been rejected by the Board by its communication dated 19-2-1998. Nothing could be shown to us as to why its case was reconsidered.

2. We asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioner was prepared to reduce the price quoted by it and the period of completion. We also asked the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 whether respondent No. 3 was also prepared to reduce the price quoted by it and also the period of completion. We were informed by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 3 did not want to participate in this process and was not prepared to reduce either the price quoted or the period. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, informed that the petitioner was prepared to reduce substantially both the price and the period.

3. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue Rule and pass interim order in terms of prayer Clause (c). Respondents waive service.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated before us that pendency of this writ petition should not come in the way of respondent No. 1 either reconsidering the entire matter afresh and to take the fresh decision or to invite fresh tenders. We clarify accordingly.

5. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 prays for stay ofthis order. We do not find any cogent reason to do so. Prayer is rejected.