1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1350/08 M/s. Chandi & Company vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 13/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.P. Garg for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to calculate the value of the similar nature of contract executed by the petitioner by adding the escalation minimum @ 10% or above for consideration of his technical bid with reference to clause 3.2(b) of general experience as mentioned in the conditions of tender document. While referring to the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, learned counsel argued that two tenders were invited by the respondents of the value of Rs.2.26 lacs and 1.19 lacs vide same NIT No.04 of the year 2002-03 and both the contracts were awarded to the 2 petitioner. They may combine together so as to fulfill the requirement of the petitioner having completed “one contract of a nature and complexity comparable to the proposed contract within the last five financial years of value not less than Rs.216.00 lacs.” Learned counsel in this connection relied on the judgment of division bench in M/s. Waged Construction Company vs. State of Raj. & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.613/06 decided on 21.11.06 and argued that if the aforesaid clause 3.2(b) is constructed by permitting the clubbing of the two contracts and as such if the petitioner is granted the escalation @ 10% or above, the petitioner becomes qualified for consideration of his financial bid for grant of contract in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material forming part of the record as well as the division bench judgment cited, I find that the division bench judgment while considering clause 3.2(b) noted that the according to it, the applicant should have at least successfully completed one contract of the 3 same nature and complexity comparable to proposed contract within the last five years of the value not less than 60% of G. Schedule i.e. 295.05 lacs. This relates to the financial capability to execute work of reasonably comparable nature and complexity, financial implication of which is to be at least 60% of the estimated cost of the proposed work. There cannot be any guess work in the matter of finance involved in completed work inasmuch as the actual cost incurred for execution of such work is known, unlike the cost of proposed work which in the very nature of things has to estimate and not actual. The division bench thus rejected the contention that value of completed work should refer to the estimated value of the completed work at the time of commencement of the work referring to the estimated contract at the time of commencement of the work. The devision bench judgment in my considered view does not in any manner help the petitioner. The argument of escalation in any case cannot be accepted because what division bench held is that it is the actual cost of the completed work 4 that should form the basis. When the respondents have required that the applicant should have the experience of completing at least one contract of the nature and complexity comparable to the proposed contract, this Court cannot re-write the eligibility requirement by process of reasoning and interpretation and club the value of two separate works executed by the petitioner so as to make it a work having total of the requisite value, which is required to make him qualified. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/