Madhya Pradesh High Court
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 2306
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P No. 6507/2020
(U.P State Bridge Corporation Limited Vs. The State of M.P &others)
JABALPUR, DATED: 30.09.2021
Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General with Shri Swapnil
Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. This petition has been filed by petitioner-U.P State Bridge Corporation Limited, a public sector undertaking challenging the communication dated 06/03/2020 and tender summary report dated 11/03/2020, with the prayer that the respondent no.1 and 2 be directed to consider the financial bid of the petitioner and not to treat the petitioner as disqualified.
2. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an accident happened during the construction of bridge by the petitioner at Varansi on 15th May, 2018 and FIR was registered under sections, 304, 308, 427, read with section 34 of the I.P.C and section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was lodged against some of the employees of the petitioner and the contractor undertaking the said construction. The investigation in that was ordered to be stayed by Allahabad High Court vide order dated 30th July, 2019. Sometime thereafter, an NIT was issued by the respondents on 30th November, 2019 for construction of elevated corridor (flyover) from Damoh Naka to Ranital Chowk Madan Mahal Chowk (upto medical Road) in Jabalpur city in Madhya Pradesh, with 16/01/2020 as last date of submission of the tenders. The respondent no.1 and 2 issued a letter dated 25/02/2020 stating that petitioner did not qualify threshold technical capacity as per Clause 2.2.2(i) and 2.2.6(ii). The petitioner gave response to that on 26/02/2020 stating that all necessary details are present in the bid submitted by the petitioner, therefore he is fully qualified. The General Manager of the petitioner personally attended the office of respondent no.2 on 27/02/2020 and explained all the details already submitted with the bid. The respondent no.2 issued letter dated 04/03/2020 alleging that the information required to be given by the petitioner in Clause 7(a) and (b) of Annexure 1 of Appendix 1A was incorrect as it did not disclose about the above criminal case. The petitioner on the same day itself refuted the aforesaid allegation. Yet the respondent no.2 issued impugned communication dated 06/03/2021 declaring bid of the petitioner as non responsive. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid letter issued letter dated 07/03/2021 wrote back that the communication dated 06/03/2021 was completely arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner's bid cannot be said to be non-responsive and he cannot be disqualified. Thereafter, in the meantime the respondent no.1 and 2 uploaded a tender summery report on 11/03/2020 on the official website of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, in which the petitioner has been shown to be technically disqualified and respondent no.3 and 4 are shown to be technically qualified.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that eventually the work was awarded to respondent no.3. The petitioner had to thereafter amend the writ petition. He filed two IA. 5593/2020 and 6354/2020 alleging that as many as 6 FIR have been lodged against the respondent no.3, with far more severe allegations. It is contended that while in the case of the petitioner, the respondents on similar ground have taken the view that the petitioner was disqualified in some other contract of the respondent department. The petitioner filed W.P No. 6681/2020 challenging the same which was allowed vide order dated 15/06/2020 holding that the petitioner cannot be taken as disqualified. The aforesaid judgment of the Indore Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4002/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of this Court vide order dated 08/12/2020, upholding the decision of the respondents to treat the petitioner disqualified.
4. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while in the case of the petitioner there was one FIR and against the respondent no.3 as many as 6 FIR which have been brought on record vide IA No. 5593/2020 and IA no. 6354/2020, with regard to different cases with allegations of execution of sub standard quality of work, offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and collapse of bridge etc. Therefore the respondents ought to have not awarded work to the respondent no.3. Action of the respondents is discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent no.3 having concealed all material from the respondent no.1 and 2 also ought not to have been awarded the work. It is contended that in the agreement executed between the parties as there is clause that even during the execution of the work, if it transpires that the bidder, who was awarded work, concealed some vital information, the employer can take decision to terminate the work.
5. Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that petitioner has not formally amended the writ petition to bring on record all these alleged FIR said to be registered against the respondent no.3. It is contended that not only letter of intent has been issued to the respondent no.3 but agreement was executed in favour of the respondent no.3 by respondent no.1 and 2 and he has started executing the work. The work has progressed.
6. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that as per his instructions, the total work of 183.4 crores, which constitute 16% of the total value, has been executed by the petitioner. In the present facts of the case, because at the time of evaluation of bid neither these allegations were brought to the notice of the respondents either by the petitioner nor were disclosed in the tender documents even by the respondent no.3, therefore, at this stage it is difficult to accept that they are factually correct. But he submitted that the respondents are open to consider the objections of the petitioner only after they have verified it's correctness.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and material available on record and considering the fact that work has already been awarded and executed thereafter to some extent, we do not wish to interfere in the matter. However at the same time, we set the petitioner at liberty to approach the respondent no.2 Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Bhopal, Government of Madhya Pradesh by means of comprehensive complaint to place before him all the material he wants to cite in support of his arguments that the judgment of the Supreme Court, shall equally apply to the respondent no.3, who (the respondent no.2) after giving opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent no.3 shall take final view in the matter considering the relevant clause of the agreement executed between the parties, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of such complaint. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Digitally signed
by tarun
TARUN
KUMAR SALUNKE
Date: 2021.10.01
10:38:51 +05'30'