Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. J. L. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents tried to contend that M/s. Driplex Water Engineerings Ltd. i.e., the petitioner had also no such experience at that time. Respondent No. 2 Gaco Systems India or the board in their respective written statements had not taken any such objection and on the other hand the Board had admitted the eligibility of the petitioner to file such tenders. Thus, no decision is called for regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to file the tender as this controversy is not directly in issue before this Court.

12. Regarding the ineligibility of Respondent No. 2 for the tender submitted in the year, 1986 the petitioner alleges that in the year 1986 also, Gaco Systems India had not the sufficient experience of installing water treatment plant of lesser capacity than the present one and that this contract was given by the Board to M/s. Thermax Private Limited, it being the lowest in price. Although this controversy has no material bearing on the controversy in hand as that plant was admittedly of lesser capacity than the water treatment plant in the case in hand, yet all the same a perusal of Memorandum No. 353/ PNRTH/M-V/891 dated 11-7-86 of the proceedings of the Punjab State Electricity Board pertaining to the purchase of water treatment plant against Specification No. 248/ PNRTP in the year 1986 reveals that only three firms genuinely qualified conditions mentioned in the notice inviting tenders regarding experience and performance. The names of these firms are : M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers, Ltd. and M/s. Driplex Water Engg. Pvt. Ltd. It is further mentioned that the tender of the following three firms were not opened on 28-12-1985, as these were not satisfying the condition of experience and performance stipulated in the notice inviting tenders. These firms are : M/s. Candy Filters (India) Ltd., M/s. Gaco Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Watco Technics Pvt. Ltd. thereafter, it is mentioned that the tender of the latter three firms were opened on 26-2-1986 and as per orders of the Chariman/ M. F. A. P. S. E. B. that all tenders even though they do not fulfil the conditions of notice inviting tenders regarding experience etc. may be opened and issue of performance may be considered at the time of evaluation. There is no indication in this memorandum whether the performance of Gaco Systems India (Respondent No. 2) in the present case was satisfactory in commissioning such plants although ultimately the tender filed by M/s. Gaco Systems India was rejected being more cost-loaded than the other concerns. Thus, it appears that Gaco Systems India was not even qualified in the matter of installation of demineralisation water treatment plant of the capacity of having one channel of 60 m3/hr to a maximum capacity of 75 m3/ hr. in the year 1986.