e-^- 2.<y-a 1 IN J'HEJ-llSH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT_P ETmON_Cd N0. ^T-.K OF 2010 PETITIONERS /y .^y.- ^•y^ ,p' ^^r\y ^ »?••' '*• 'v <!- .r RESPONbENTS Vs 1. M/s Mohammed Kasim, a partnership firm acting in the premises through its partner Sheikh Niyamatullah, son of Mohammed Kasim, aged about 45 years, resident of House No.173, Ward No.l, Darri Road, Ramsagarpara ftoad, Korba, Tehsila and District Korba (C6) . Sheikh Niyamatullah, son of Mohammed Kaslm, aged about 45 years, resident of House No.173, Ward No.l, Darri Road, Ramsagarpara Road, Korba. Tehsila and District Korba (C6) 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Seneration Company Limited, a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking, through its Mana9in9 Director, Danganiya, Raipur. ^ 2. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh .State Power Seneration Company Limited, HTPC West, Korba(C6) 3. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh >^ ,,^'<?<•-' ^ '•^^-"^:: 2_ State Power Generation Company Ltd, East, Korba (CG) 4. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Sener-ation Company Limited, DSPM East, Korba (C6) 5. Brilliant Electricals, a partnership firm through its Partner Shri Ramesh Pillai, age & son of not known to the petitioners, resident of LI6- 58, Sada Colony, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nagar, Jamnipali, District Korba (C£) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA ^f^91^ ;s*i- ;,,,,p» SI^' HICTiCOURT OF^iHHMTISGAmi, BILASPXJR DB: HOM'BLE IJ«.QUDDUSI & HON'BLB N.K. AORAWAL, JJ W.P (Q No. 372S of2010 Vs. o' APPEARANCB: Mr. B. P. Sharma, counsel for the Petitioners. JUDGMENT (23.07.2010) Per I.M. OUDDWSI Heard. 2. This is second heanng of litigation for the same case. Earlier W.P.No. 1191/2010 was filed by the pctitioner which was disniissed on 30th ofJunc, 2010 with a liberly to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order of techaical bid which has not been ctiaUenged in that writ petition. 3. The brieffacts ofthe case are that Notice Inviting Tenders (NrT) for executiag works specified as T-639/20t0, T- 645/2010, T-647/2010, T-19/2010 & T-345/2009 was issued ia which the eligibflily criteria for opening price bid was fixed to the extent that fhe bidders shotild have e^perience of satisfactorily executing at-least two contracts of AOH of Ducts & Dampers/any other inajor PETITION@B M/s. Mohamiaed Kasim and aaofher RESPONDEWTS Chhattisgarh State Power Oeneration Company Limited and four ofhers structural fabricatiou work in any 120 MW or above capacity BHEL/ABL Ttiermal Power Plaut iu diffcrent tenders. But fhe two years experience was inaudatory. Furfher fhe averE^e aanual tura-over of the bidder was also one of the conditions and the bidder had to subuiit the audited reports aloiig-with profit and loss stateiaent & balaace sheet for the last fhree finaadal yeara endiug upto March 2009. 4. This is thc admitted case of the petitioner that he did not subinit the balaace sheet of fhe finaacial year 2008-2009 despite the opportunily given to huu. \s?,^ 5. In earlier Writ Petition fited as W.P.1191/2010, retum was on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been speci&caUy laentioned ia para 2.4 that tfae petitioner (Ud not meet fhe requireinents of eUgibUily critena for opening of price bid of his Tender. The petitioner did not qualify tfae maadatoiy eligibiUty experience critcria for liaving experience of satisfactorily executing at least two same type of Annual overhauling works during last five yeara ia aay thennal power plant having 200/210 MW or above capacily imits ^aiust contract awarded direcfly by CSPGCL/NTPC/BHEL/Rcputed Power utilities. 6. In thc Special Instructk>ns it was inentioned that the pri.cc bids of oiity those bidders shall be opened who wiB provide satisfactory documentoiy evidencc to substaatiate foUowiag eligibitity criteria. The desired documents to substantiate eI^ibiUty criteria are to be kept in Part-II nai (Techno-coiamercial bid) envelope. It was also xnentioned fhat the oflfers of such bidders, wlio are not fiilfilling fhe above cited eIigibUily criteria by way of iaadequate docuinents/insiifficient docuinents /non-subinission of desired doczunents shall be treated as iacouiplete aad stiall not be considered for opeaiag of Price Bids at the sole discretion of the CSPGCL without assigning any reason thereof. The decision of CSPGCL shall be final and no correspondence ia this regard shaU be eutertataed. As such while subinitting your ofifer, please ensure thflt your offer is coiaplete in all respects as per CSPGCL's requireinent and all the desircd documents are submitted. o 7. The petitioner himself has annexed the Letter dated 04.03.2010 issued by the Superintendii^ BB^ineer (P & W) HTPS: CSPGCL: Koifca West addressed to tfae petitioner reganiing siibinission of audited balance sheet and statement of profit aad toss for the financial year 2008-2009 tfaat is for fhe year ending 31rt March, 2009. In the said letterthe petitioner was irtformed as under: DearSira, In continuation to above, it is to state here fhat as per eligibility criteria for opessng of price bids of above referred tenders the participant bidders had to submit the audited balance sheet and profit & loss stateuient of lastg 03 finaacial years upto year ending March, 2009 ia Rart-II fTecluio-coininn.Bid) ofthe oflfer. On scrutiny of the documents subinitted by you ia part-II (Techno-conun. Bids) of yotir above referred 03 ofFers to fulfill the el^ibflity criteria for openiag of price bkis. it is found that you have • » 8. submitted auditied balance sheet aad profit and loss statement for the financial ycars 2006-2007 & 2007-2008. Further, balance sheet and profit & loss stetenieat for the financial year 2008-2009 is unaudited. You are, therefore, requested to subxnit the audited balaace sheet and profit & loss stateiuent for the fiaaucjal year 2008-2009 as per tender coudition. Please ensure that the docuinents as desired above inust be submitted latest by 08/03/2010 positively failing which action as per tender condition shaU be taken. Thanking you, Yours faitfafuUy, Sd/- Superintendiag Enginecr, HTPS:CSPGCL: KORBA, WEST In view of the above facts and circumstaaces of the case, the petitioner was not eljgible for opeiung his price bid when fhere was the condition in the teader document fhat the price bid will not be opened in case of non- fulfilment of criteria and the petitioaer was given opportunity to fumish the audited balance sheet & profit and loss statement for the fiaancial year 2008-09, but he did aot subniit fhe same. Hence, we are not inclined to eiitertain the writ petition. 9. The writ petitfon is misconceived and is thereforc dismissed. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge