siKiti ^igB^^:^^^:^^^^' KGH COURT W CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHfU DHIRENIWA MtSHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANCTtAKAR. JJ Petitioner Versus Writ Petitton (c> No. 5146 of2010 Barbrik Prqect Limited, (Ineorporated under fte indian Companies fist, 1956), ftrough its Dlrector Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o PR Agrawal, aged about 46 yeare, registered cfflce at Nehru Park Road, Surajpur - 497229 (Chhattisgarh) Resoondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Prtneipal Secretoity, Public Works Department, Govemmert of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Engineer-in-Chief, PuWic Worte Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Line, Beh. Akashwani Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Tender Evaluation Comtnittee, Chisf Engineer, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, CMI Line, Beh. Akashwani Bhawan, Raipur (ChhatUsgarh) Present: Shri Anldt Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER ith (8"September,2010) PerDhifendi'a Mishra,J Respondent No.2 floated a Notice tnviting Tender (in short "NIT") for construction of road for the estimated cost <rf Rs.4068.19 tacs. The prequalification criteria, as laid down in the NIT, was Ihat the tenderer in te name should have in the last five financial years satisfatAority completed at least one single worlc equat in value to 50% Osifty Percent) of the probable amount of the contract. The petttioner participated in the tender process aod submitted his bid. The tender documents were in two paris: (i) Bid 1 (techno- commercial offer), and (ii) Bkl 2 (price bid). The peUtioner, apprehending ttiat his techno-commercial offer wflukl be rejected on the ground of experience, submitted a representatton on 12.7.2010 (Annexure P/4). However, he was declared ineligible for the tender vi/ork by the Evaluation Committee chaired by the Chief Engineer, Pubtic Wortes Department, Nationat Highvwy, Circte Raipur and his representation was also rejected by the Chief Engineer vide order dated 28.7.2010 and he was inyormed by respondent No.2 about the same vide tetter dated 10.8.2010 of Annexure P/1. ,rft"°'**},. ••'l.-. ''^. .^yv'" • ..^-fS^^ ;'fs^\^-~^ '^?-.- s;"^?i;' % ^" Learned counsel for the petltioner submte that the petitioner was eligibte to participate in the tender process as he had successtully compteted the work under Agreement No.15/ADB/2006 dated 13.3.2007, which vias subtet to him by the origlnal contractor IWs Renarelet SA. SubM:ing to e extent of ^B% of the value of the work was permitted by the Project Director - PIU, ADB Project, Raipur vide its order dated 22nd June, 2009 and thus, he fulfitted the eligibilHy criteria under the present NIT. On the other hand, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed Dy. AArocate General for the State, argued Vhat the petitioner was declared ineligible byVhe Evaluation Committee constttuted for evaluation of the tender ctocumente on the grounds: (i) that experience regarding simitar work was of sublet work, (ii) the petitioner did not fumish details in Annexure-3: and (iii) on aeasount of non- lurnishing of Annexure-5, quality ofthe work could not be ascertained. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. As per eligibiltty criteria mentioned in Vhe NIT (Annexure P/3), we find that the minimum requirement to be etigibte to apply for the work is that 'Bach twiderer in Its name slmuM have in the last ffiw ffnancM years satisfactorily comp/eted at least one simttar wwk equal in value to 50% {FHty percent) of the probaUe amount of contracf. It is specHteally mentioned that offers of Uie joint ventures shall not be accepted. After going through the grounds mentioned in the document of Annexure P/1 for treating ttie petitioner inetigibte, the eligBxUfy crtteria mentioned in Clause (2) of Uie tender document, and sriter carefully going through ttie pleadings in the petition, we are of the opinion tftat the dedsion made by the authorities cannot be termed to be malafide, arbttrary or irraUonal, and the same is as per eligibHity criteria prescribed in the NIT. Wfe find no substance in this peUtion, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, -dismissed at the admission stage ttself. ——- SdA ~~=p-—^"v~, : '—^. Judge \ \ R-N. ChandTakar \---~f^——' ^ — ^. Judge : i ^