Punjab-Haryana High Court
Petitoiner vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 April, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CWP No.17533 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17533 of 2011
Date of Decision: 20.04.2012
M/s Geo Miller & Company Private Limited
....Petitoiner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present: - Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vijay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6.
1.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*****
ALOK SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing the award of contract in favour of respondent No.5 by respondents No.1 to 4.
2. Assertions made in the writ petition, inter alia, are that respondent No.4 has issued an advertisement in the month of February, 2011 inviting tenders to establish 52 MLD capacity sewage treatment plant (SBR) technology at Bathinda on turnkey basis. Petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have submitted their respective tenders in three envelops. Envelop 'A' was related to earnest money deposited, envelop 'B' was related to technical bids and envelop 'C' was related to price bid. Technical bids were opened on 8.7.2011. The department, vide letter dated 20.7.2011 sent to the petitioner, has pointed out certain CWP No.17533 of 2011 -2- deficiencies on opening of technical bid on 8.7.2011 and sought the clarification from the petitioner and also asked the petitioner to send revised price bid by submitting addendum price in sealed cover on or before 26.7.2011. Letters of the same effect were also issued to other bidders, including respondent No.5 to submit the revised price bid by submitting addendum price. Initially, as per the price bid petitioner has quoted lowest cost i.e. ` 312400000/- while respondent No.5 has quoted ` 317800000/-. Initially petitioner has furnished guaranteed power consumption as 8200 KWH per day and respondent No.5 has submitted power consumption as 8500 KWH per day, therefore, evaluated cost of power consumption for the petitioner would have been ` 108809907/- and of respondent No.5 would have been ` 106190500/-. Therefore, the total cost as has been submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.5 would have been ` 421209907/- and ` 423990500/-, respectively. However, after the letter to submit revised price bid in the shape of addendum price, respondent No.5 has deliberately changed the power consumption from 8500 KWH per day to 8200 KWH per day thereby reducing the cost of power which should have not been permitted to respondent No.5 by the petitioner.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, after opening of the technical bid of the bidders, department has called all the bidders vide letter dated 20.7.2011 to submit the revised price bid by showing addendum price. Undisputedly Annexure P-5 was issued to the petitioner therein pointing certain deficiencies in the bid submitted by the petitioner, which reads as under:
"i) Make of MDG given as GEO MILLER is not as per CWP No.17533 of 2011 -3- list of approved make in the approved DNIT Vol. I
ii) In Reactor the criteria adopted for air requirement for mixing and its reference is not given.
iii) Detailed calculation of discharge required of air blowers not provided.
iv) Detailed calculation including unit size calculation of selector zone not provided.
v) Design flow for chlorine contact tank should be for maximum decanted flow.
vi) The criteria adopted for air requirement for mixing in sludge pump is not self explanatory
vii) The thickener feed pump should be for 16 hours operation as per Vol-1 page 107 of DNIT.
viii) The centrifuge should be designed for capacity compatible with centrifuge feed pump.
ix) The centrifuge feed pump should be designed for handling total daily sludge in 16 hours. Accordingly the capacity of DWPE tank is also required to be increased.
x) In piping schedule some of the pipes DWPE dosing tank and DWPE dosing pumps not given and also the sludge pump down comer pipe details not given.
xi) The P&I diagram appendix is incomplete. The details of instruments and process for various units like inlet chamber, screening chamber, sludge pumps and chlorination plant is required to be shown in the drawing. The drawing is not readable and you are requested to provide bigger sized readable.
xii) Return activated sludge pumps and surplus activated sludge pumps are not as per DNIT requirement.
xiii) Polyelectrolyte agitator and E.O.I crane are not as per DNIT requirement.
xiv) Decanter should be as per approved DNIT.
xv) The Hydraulic flow calculation may be down under CWP No.17533 of 2011 -4- gravity flow condition keeping in view the HFL of the effluent receiving body i.e. 209.80 Mtr given at page 82 of Volume I Part If under sub Head "Site information.
xvi) Process calculation. Hydraulic diagram and P&I diagram attached in the technical bid are photo copies & drawing are incomplete not fully readable and not vetted by the Technology provider as per requirement of approved DNIT.
xvii) It may also be confirmed that latest relevant IS Code with upto date amendments shall be followed for executing the project.
xviii) You must confirm that the entire work including O&M work shall be done as per approved DNIT and you must also confirm that there is no deviation in your offer from the approved DNIT.
xix) Soft copy of calculation must be submitted on excel or M.S. Word format and editable.
In case you do not rectify your technical bid to bring it at par with the approved DNIT then your technical bid will not be accepted and accordingly, as per clause 2.6 of Vol-I part -3 your price bid (Envelop - C) will not be opened. You are requested to attend the observation and submit your reply to this office by 11.00 a.m. on dated 26.7.2011. On the basis of above you may revise your price bid by submitting "Addendum price" in sealed cover which should reach in this office by 3.00 p.m. On dated 26.7.2011. The price bid along with addendum price if any (envelop-C) will be opened on 26.7.2011 at 3.00 p.m. In this office in the presence of intending tenderers or their authorised representative who may like to be present."
4. Undisputedly, deficiencies pointed out by the department in the technical bid of the petitioner vide letter dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure CWP No.17533 of 2011 -5- P-5) were never clarified by the petitioner. Annexure P-6, reply to Annexure P-5, is totally silent about the deficiencies pointed out by the department.
5. In the present case, department, vide letter dated 20.7.2011, has called revised addendum price from every bidder. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the garb of revised price in the shape of addendum price, cost of power consumption should have not been allowed to be reduced by respondent No.5, cannot be accepted. We do not find any discrimination or arbitrary action on the part of respondents No.1 to 4, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted at all.
6. Writ petition is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Dismissed.
(M.M. Kumar) Judge (Alok Singh) Judge April 20, 2012 R.S.