CWP No.15984 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15984 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 The Nahianwala Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G.Pb. for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition was filed to seek quashing of order dated 7.6.2010 dismissing representation of the petitioner against a provision in the tender notice for stipulated experience. The experience laid down was of lining of canals involving value not less than the amount of work of a tender in a single closure during last three years. 2. Notice was issued in reply to which stand taken is that by way of corrigendum dated 13.9.2010, the said condition was relaxed to provide for experience in a single closure during last seven years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of relaxed condition, petitioner No.2 has already been allotted the contract. 4. As regards relevance of prescribed experience, stand taken in the reply is as under:- “6.That the contentions of the petitioner are that they have executed the work of Lining of Canal when the water was 1 CWP No.15984 of 2010 flowing is more difficult than the closure work, is not tenable as the lining work when the canal is running requires no limitation of period and work is generally like a repair work or to put few layers of bricks on side slops of small canals above water level, but here in the case of works of Kotla Branch, which is a very big canal, the work will be executed from foundation level to top level of lining within a very short period to be notified by the Govt. of Punjab, this canal cannot be kept closed for any uncertain period as it provides water drinking as well as for irrigation of land nearly about 10 lacs acres. So the conditions under which these works shall be executed are quite different in nature than the works undertaken by the petitioners’ Societies as alleged in the Annexures P.11 to P.28. As such they do not fulfill the condition No.3 of NIT. It is further submitted that the dates of submission of bid, opening of Technical bid and opening of Financial bid have been extended to 20.9.2010, 21.9.2010 and 27.9.2010 respectively vide Corrigendum dated 13.9.2010.It is further submitted that the condition No.3 of the Eligibility for Participation/Conditions for pre-qualifications (for two tiers system) should be read as under:- ‘1.Contractors/Consortiums who have successfully completed works of similar nature valuing not less than the amount of work of this tender, in a single closure during any of the last seven consecutive calendar years, shall only be considered. A documentary proof issued by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer of the concerned department alongwith his contact number should be attached instead of previous one. 2. In Schedule C the information about each relevant work completed during last seven years instead of last three years be furnished. 3. Definition of Similar work : Brick lining of Canals only during a single closure.” 2 CWP No.15984 of 2010 5. In view of the fact that petitioner No.2 has already been allotted the contract, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 25, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3