Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Prima-facie there seems to be some irregularities in ignoring the bid of IVRCL Ltd. Without calling for the clarification regarding its experience. IVRCL Ltd is a big company having annual average turnover of more than Rs.5000 crores and should not have been ignored without proper verification leaving the field open to a comparatively small bidder namely M/s BGCCPL because everyone knows that the rates of Larsen & Toubro Ltd shall certainly be higher than that of this small bidder. Many emails have been received from Radhakrishnan Nair on behalf of IVRCL interalia alleging that a certificate of experience submitted by M/s BGCCPL is not proper because it has been issued by the subcontractors of HSIIDC that is M/s Ramky Infra while it should have been given by HSIIDC only. In addition, it has been alleged that in a similar work being executed in HUDA, M/s BGCCPL has been issued a notice under Clause 2. Therefore, the comments on the complaints should be given by HUDA and all the 2 bidders may be called for discussions/clarifications before me at 12:00 noon on 5.8.2014. At the time of discussions, CA, CE (NCR), concerned SE and XEN should also be present."
"The performace of L-I in HUDA allotted works is extremely unsatisfactory. In fact, in work pertaining to providing Master Water Supply Scheme (SWD), Sector 75-89, Faridabad, it has already been imposed 2% penalty under Clause-II. The work CWP No. 20209 of 2014 [ 13 ] was supposed to have been completed on 11.4.2014 but till 7.8.2014, only 40% work has been completed. Moreover, in respect of other major work costing Rs.124.70 crores pertaining to Master Sewerage Scheme of Sector 77 to 115, Gurgaon, the performance is less than 10% even though time limit for completion work has expired. In the reasons for delay, third party insepction agency M/s Sri Ram Test House has been blamed for delay in inspection of material. Delay has also been attributed to delay in finalization of technical scheme but there is some delay on the part of this L-I contractor also for which it has been issued notice. Then there is gray area whether its experience certificate given by Ramky Infrastructure, who is the contractor of the HSIIDC, can be given any credence. It also needed to be ascertained by HUDA whether Ramky Infrastructure was allowed as per terms of contract to sublet this work to any other contractor or not but while evaluating the eligibility of L-I, same was no done by XEN, HUDA."

20. Another facet of the present case is that the impugned order has been passed by Executive Engineer (W) for Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkukla whereas as per condition No.20 of the document inviting E-tender (P-1), the authority to approve or reject the tender rests with the Chief Engineer-I, HUDA, Panchkula. Clause 20 reads thus:-

"20. The approval of the acceptance of tender will rest with The Chief Engineer-I, HUDA, Panchkula who does not bind himself to accept the lowest tender and reserves to himself the authority to reject any or all of tenders received without assigning any reasons."

21. Even as per the reply of the respondents, "...... after the grant of administrative approval for execution of development works in HUDA, tenders are allotted by the Engineering Wing, HUDA as per delegated powers and there is no role of the Chief Administrator, HUDA or the Government in this regard." In the present case, there is no order approving, rejecting or re-tendering the work in question by Chief Engineer-I, HUDA, Panchkula, who is the only competent authority in this regard as per Condition No.20 of document inviting E-Tender. Even no opinion was sought from him before ordering re- tendering in the present case nor was any report sought for in this regard from him. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents for some malafide reasons and hidden motive for considerations. Thus in our considered opinion, the CWP No. 20209 of 2014 [ 23 ] impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction by the Executive Engineer (W), HUDA in colourable exercise of its powers vested in him by law, deserves to be set-aside.