Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

document appended with e-procurement notice has been referred to copiously by the learned counsel for the petitioner more specifically clause 4.5(A) which spells out the conditions/qualifications, which are to be fulfilled by the bidder. Learned counsel while referring to clause 4.5(A) has submitted that respondent no. 6 was awarded the work in utter disregard and violation of the said clause as well as the other conditions, which have subsequently been referred to by him. Mr. Gadodia has referred to appendix-2-"Instruction to Bidders", which deals with the work of construction of Jharkhand High Court Building and the value of the work has been ascertained to be Rs. 133, 83,15,000/- and the quantity of work has also been enumerated therein. It has been submitted that during the pre-bid-meeting with respect to answering of queries, it was questioned by M/s Ramki Infrastructure Ltd. with respect to clause 4.5 (b) of the ITB, wherein a query was put with respect to "some works" as any RCC Framed Building Structure to which a reply was given that the same has to be read as any RCC Framed Government Building Structure. It was also decided on the query made by Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. that the pre qualification criteria of building works executed under the private clients towards similar work experience will not be considered. It has been submitted that the answer to the queries made in the pre-bid- meeting had virtually shut out the respondent no. 6 in its bid to qualify for the work but as would be evident, the respondent no. 6 was favoured by the State ignoring the actual requirements/qualifications and giving a complete go-bye to the norms and procedures generally adopted and the entire exercise goes to show the ineligibility of respondent no. 6 in bidding for the work in question. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel, has in the context of pre-bid-meeting referred to clause 9.2.4 of I.T.B and has submitted that the said clause is virtually divided into two parts. The first is circulation/transmission of the minutes of meetings including the text of questions raised and response given to all the purchasers of the bidding document. The second part of the same clause is concerned with any modification of the bidding documents which may occur as a result of pre-bid-meeting and which can be made through the issue of an addendum. In reference to the said clause, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a corrigendum was issued, in which a mention had been made that the reply of pre-bid-query were uploaded and the other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Learned counsel submits that the pre-bid-meeting does not amend any terms and conditions of the ITB but it only clarifies certain issues and certain queries, about which there was some confusion but which was erased during the meeting. It has been submitted that the clarifications, which were made by the respondents- State in the pre-bid-meeting had considerable weight as the basic purpose of pre-bid-meeting was to clear the air about certain misconceptions arising out of the same ITB document. Learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent no. 6 does not qualify as it has not carried out at least one similar work. Submission has been advanced that the term "at least one similar work" either can be construed in a very narrow term or be wide in its amplitude. It has been submitted that the respondents-State has been very careful in coining the said term to shower favoritism. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Gadodia has submitted that prior to making a bid for construction of Jharkhand High Court Building, the petitioner has claimed to have constructed the International Cricket Stadium at Dhurwa, Ranchi but the same was never a government structure as has been clarified as one of the prime requirements in the pre-bid-meeting. Even from the completion certificate of International Cricket Stadium, the name of the employer has been shown as Jharkhand State Cricket Association, which is dehors the terms and conditions of the bidding instruction but in spite of the apparent ineligibility of respondent no. 6, the work was still given to respondent no. 6. Attacking the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 5, it has been submitted that paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit does not contain any reply with respect to contention of the petitioner on the minutes of the pre-bid-meeting and the other clarifications which had been made. Even para 22 of the counter affidavit does not contain any specific reply to the averments made by the petitioner in the writ application and merely an evasive reply has been given by the state authorities, which goes to show their inability to defend their illegal action in declaring the respondent no. 6 as a successful bidder. So far as the averments made in para 33 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 is concerned, it has been submitted that it is wrong to say on the part of the respondents-State Authority that the clarifications, which had been given in pre-bid-meeting does not have any overriding effect. If that was the position, there was no necessity of holding any pre-bid-meeting as the sole purpose of the meeting was to clarify any misgiving any of the participants might have had in ITB or in the bidding process. Concluding his argument with respect to his limb of submission about non qualification of respondent no. 6, learned counsel sums up by stating that when the respondent no. 6 did not even fulfill the basic eligibility criteria for participating in the technical bid, it's being successful in the backdrop of the instances referred do suggest that the respondent no. 6 was given the work in violation of the terms and conditions of ITB.