Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) Keyes constructions, Madurai;
(2) E.C.C.I. Chennai;
(3) Zoom Developers, Mumbai;
(4) L & T, Chennai;
(5) Consolidated Toll Network, Mumbai; (6) Highway contractors, Cochin;
(7) B.S.B.K. Bhilai;
(8) C. Venkateswara Rao, Cummidipoondi.

Serial numbers 7 and 8 are the petitioner and third respondent respectively who purchased the tender documents. It is also not disputed that as per the tender condition, a site inspection was arranged on 1 9 -2-2003 and the petitioner had also participated in the meeting that was held on 7-3-2003. A pre-bid conference was held on 7-3-2003 at Kuzhithurai. In this meeting all the prospective bidders participated and sought clarification on various issues relating to this work. It is explained in the counter affidavit that as many as 176 queries were raised by the bidders. It is also seen that two contractors, namely, Kayes construction and East Coast construction India requested for postponement of tender by 15 days and 30 days respectively. It is further seen that inasmuch as this being a Government of India work, on getting approval from the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport, the Superintending Engineer, National Highways communicated the replies to the queries to all the bidders on 10-7-2003. This necessitated the postponement of tenders originally. The tender date finally was extended and the same was fixed on 25-9-2003. As per the terms of tender notification, the tender schedule has to be submitted before 3 p.m. It is the claim of the petitioner that on 25-9-2003, their representative went to the office of the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli, 2nd respondent herein at about 1.3 0 p.m. When he got over from the car, a mob of more than 40 persons, who were arranged at the instance of the third respondent, surrounded the representative of the petitioner company, took away the tender schedule from his hands and abducted him in a hotel. The above statement in the affidavit and the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner before this Court are seriously disputed by respondents 2 and 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer, National Highways as well as the third respondent-G. Venkateswara Rao has specifically denied and as a matter of fact, the Superintending Engineer has categorically stated that no such incident had taken place within his office premises. Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the complaint dated 25-9-2003 to the Commissioner of Police which finds a place at page Nos.2 and 3 of the typed-set of papers, vehemently contended that the petitioner' s representative was forcibly prevented at the instance of the third respondent from submitting the tender schedule before 3 p.m on 25-9-2 0