CWP No.4311 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4311 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.04.2011 The Shiv Shakti Co-op L&C Society Ltd., Rewari ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Shri G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5. Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition is directed against the memos No.574 and 577 both dated 2.2.2011 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) by which the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the DNIT (Annexure P-4) has been rejected. According to the petitioner, such rejection was on the ground CWP No.4311 of 2011 -: 2 :- that the petitioner was not enlisted with the Public Health Department and such enlistment was not upto the cost of the works mentioned in the DNIT (approximately Rs.323.75 lacs). By interim order dated 30.3.2011, we had permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process and the respondents were directed to place the result thereof before the Court. The comparative chart of the bids submitted indicates that the petitioner had quoted the lowest price and the difference in the price quoted by the petitioner and the next higher tenderer is more than Rs.90 lacs. It is in these circumstances that the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the tender process and to secure the work order has to be examined by us. In so far as the enlistment of the petitioner with the Public Health Department is concerned, we have noticed that in clause 9 of the Government Notification dated 28.3.2007, Cooperative Labour and Constructions societies enlisted with the Principal Department, i.e., any one of the three branches of the Public Works Department are not required to be enlisted with other Departments, Corporations, Local Governments, semi- Government Undertakings, etc. etc. Admittedly, the petitioner is enlisted with the PWD. Hence by virtue of Clause 9 of the aforesaid Government Notification dated 28.3.2007, the requirement of further enlistment with the Public Health Engineering Department will not be required. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that enlistment of the petitioner with the PWD being limited to the amount of Rs.1 crore and as the enlistment for higher amounts is subject to certain conditions, the petitioner has to be understood to be enlisted with the Public Health Department only for an amount of Rs.1 crore, cannot be accepted. CWP No.4311 of 2011 -: 3 :- This will bring the Court to the consideration of the main issue involved, i.e., whether the enlistment of the contractor for amounts exceeding Rs.1 crore would make him eligible to participate in the tender process pursuant to the DNIT. The enlistment of the petitioner with PWD for more than Rs.1 crore has been made subject to the qualification criteria of the bid document. The bid document (Annexure P-4) makes it clear that, to be eligible, a contractor must be enlisted upto the cost of the DNIT. If the value of the DNIT is Rs.323.75 lacs and all intending bidders in order to be eligible are required to be so enlisted upto the said amount of Rs.323.75 lacs, we do not see how the petitioner can be considered to be qualified by virtue of the enlistment certificate enclosed as Annexure P-1 which makes it clear that the petitioner's enlistment for more than Rs.1 crore is subject to the qualification criteria mentioned in the bid document. An argument has been advanced that the petitioner has been awarded works by the Irrigation Department of the value of Rs.5.20 crore by virtue of the same enlistment certificate and, therefore, the decision holding the petitioner to be ineligible in the present case is patently wrong. We have already noticed that the enlistment of the petitioner for more than Rs.1 crore is subject to certain conditions. Whether the petitioner had satisfied those conditions in respect of the other works for which separate DNIT were issued is not known. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner qualified in terms of the present DNIT for the works in question. In view of the above, we do not see how the petitioner can be considered to be qualified for allotment of works pursuant to the DNIT in question though he may have offered a lower amount. The writ petition, CWP No.4311 of 2011 -: 4 :- therefore, is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [Ranjan Gogoi] Chief Justice [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] April 05, 2011. Judge kadyan