IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17123 of 2009 M/s GLR Traders (Franchise Zeolite (India) Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 1 M, Jagdish Lok, West Boring Canal Road, Patna through its sole Proprietor Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Kamal Nath Jha, R/o Flat No.1, Braj Kunj Apartment, Anandpuri, PS- S.K.Puri, Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Vishweshwraiya Bhawan Campus, Baily Road, Patna – 8000815 2. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Vishweshwraiya Bhawan Campus, Baily Road, Patna- 8000815 3. Shri Madan Kumar, Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Vishweshwraiya Bhawan Campus, Baily Road, Patna- 8000815 4. M/s. ANIR Engineering INC, 391/143, Prince Anwarshah Road, Poddar Nagar, Kolkata-68 and City Office – 139, Regent Estate, Kolkata-7000092, Fax -033-28560124 ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State: M/s. J.P.Karn, AAG 9 and A.K. Dubey, AC to AAg-9 ---------- 8. 25.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Respondent no. 4. The petitioner seeks quashing of the work order for supply and installation of M.S. body Iron Removal System against the tender dated 7.2.2009 which has been awarded to respondent no.4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that 2 earlier also two tenders were floated in the matter in March, 2006 and December, 2006 but the same were not taken to the stage of opening of financial bid, but at the stage of technical bid the tenderers were directed to install the Iron Removal Systems at different places so as to test the same. However, nothing came out of the same and ultimately the third notice inviting tenders was issued on 7.2.2009. In the said tender process only two tenderers, the petitioner and respondent no. 4, M/s. Anir Engineering participated in the technical bid and both were found eligible on the basis of the criteria set up but the similar process adopted earlier of testing the actual units was not take up and the technical tender Committee in its meeting dated 30.4.2009 held that both the tenderers are eligible. When the financial bid was opened it was found that the application of respondent no. 4 quoted a rate of Rs. 23,449/- whereas the petitioner had quoted the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per unit plus Rs. 1000/- per unit per year for maintenance. In the said circumstances, the respondent no. 4, as the lowest tenderer, was granted the contract for the supply of 4703 3 units of Iron Removal Systems. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this time the technical evaluation was done specially to benefit the respondent no. 4 for which he has leveled various allegations of mala fide against the respondent authorities. It is urged by learned counsel that if the same procedure as earlier had been followed then the petitioner would have been found more suitable than the respondent no. 4. In the counter affidavits the State-respondents as also the respondent no. 4 have countered the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the proper process was followed by the Tender Committee set up for the said purpose and only after evaluation of the technical bids of both the petitioner and respondent no. 4 by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee of the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, the financial bids were obtained. It is urged that since the bids were submitted in sealed envelope, it could not have been known to the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee as to who would be the lower tenderer. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 is a well 4 established manufacturer for the manufacture and supply of water purification system including Iron Removal System apart from fluoride and arsenic removal system and thus it cannot be said that the tender had been allotted to a party who was not suitable or eligible. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the respondent no. 4 has only worked in supply of Iron Removal System to the extent of Rs. 52 lacs or odd in the last five years and thus he did not comply with the requirement of supply to the extent of Rs. 2.88 crore in the last five years. From a consideration of the tender documents, it is evident that the bidder must have minimum experience of five years prior to submission of bid in works of similar nature and successful installation of water treatment units of value not less than 25% of estimated amount. In view of the said pre-condition regarding successful installation of water treatment units and not merely supply and installation of iron removal system, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 4 was not eligible to have successfully qualified for the technical bid as he definitely fulfils the conditions laid down in the tender 5 notice. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court accepts the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and does not find any merit in the writ petition, although it would have been more appropriate if the authorities had followed the similar procedure of evaluating the actual systems being supplied by the tenderers as during the earlier technical bids. However, that is a matter for technical experts and this Court would not quash the work order solely on the said ground. The writ application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)