IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 CWP No. 11201 of 2011 M/s Star Filtration and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. A. S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.4. CWP No. 11202 of 2011 M/s Star Filtration and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.6. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Hemant Gupta, J. CWP No.11201 of 2011 & CWP No.11202 of 2011 This order will dispose of CWP Nos.11201 and 11202 of 2011 pertaining to two separate e-tenders i.e. for the purchase of 4000 meters of Electric Resistance Welded Stainless Steel Cage Type V Wire Wound Screens vide tender number 604 dated 27.04.2011 (for short “the screens”) and 20000 meters of Electric Resistance Welded Mild Pipes vide tender number 603 dated 25.04.2011 (for short “the pipes”). The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the tender process was initiated vide tender notice dated 7.2.2011 in respect of both pipes and screens. But subsequently on 25.4.2011, a separate e-tender has been published for purchase of pipes and another e-tender on 27.4.2011 for the purchase of screens. In the said tenders, the eligibility conditions have been changed so as to exclude the present petitioner. It is pointed out that the demand of the respondents is of purchase of 4000 meters of screens and 20000 meters of pipes but the eligibility condition is that the tenderers should have supplied 4000 meters of screen and pipes in any one year during the last 10 years and that the minimum financial turnover is more than Rs.4 Crores in any one year during the last three years. It is contended that such conditions have been introduced so as to exclude the petitioners from the process of participation in the tender process and such conditions have been incorporated only to benefit private respondents in the present petitions. It is also contended that even though tender process has not been concluded but still the purchase order has been placed upon respondent No.4 for supply of pipes in CWP No.11201 of 2011 and on respondent No.6 for supply of screens in CWP No.11202 of 2011. It is thus, contended that purchase order has been placed in wholly illegal and arbitrary manner without completing the tender process. 2 CWP No.11201 of 2011 & CWP No.11202 of 2011 In the reply it has been explained that National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development has sanctioned a scheme for the installation of 280 deep tube wells in various districts of Punjab. Earlier tenders were invited for supply of pipes and screens required for 40 tube wells. Such supply has since been completed. Subsequently, the present tender was floated for requirement of pipes and screens for installation of about 60 tube wells. In the meantime, the Corporation also decided to purchase material for 16 tube wells and it was decided to obtain pipes and screens on DGS&D rates. The Corporation has written letters to 21 firms registered with the DGS&D and only one firm responded to the letter of Corporation and contract has been placed upon the said firm for the supply of pipes and screens for the installation of 16 tube wells, which is distinct from the tender initiated for the supply of pipes and screens for the installation of 60 tube wells. It is pointed out that in terms of the directions of this Court dated 19.5.2011 in an earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner, the State Government has constituted a three member committee consisting of Chief Engineer/Canals, Chief Engineer/KAD and Managing Director, Punjab Water Resources and Development Corporation. Such Committee has considered the tender conditions and found that the criteria mentioned in the tenders is proper and that such criteria is to assess the capability of the bidder to complete supply in a time bound manner and to assess his capability in terms of physical and financial performance. It is pointed out that quantity was to be supplied within one month; therefore, such condition was found necessary in respect of the capacity of the tenderer to complete the supply within one month. The decision of the committee on such representation has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-15 along with the writ petition. 3 CWP No.11201 of 2011 & CWP No.11202 of 2011 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality in the tender process. Initially the tender process was initiated for purchase of pipes and screens for installation of 60 tube wells as mentioned in the written statement. The rate offered in such tenders were found to be higher than the rates offered in DGS&D rates and therefore, the Corporation started negotiating the rates with the tenderers but in the meantime, the requirement of material for installation of 16 tube wells arose. In view of the higher rates offered in the tender process, the Corporation decided to purchase material on DGS&D rates. However, it was during negotiations subsequently, the tenders have reduced their rates to less than that DGS&D rates. We do not find any illegality in the eligibility conditions. The eligibility conditions have been examined by a committee to determine the physical and financial capability of the tenders. The physical capacity of a manufacturer is that of producing the required quantity in any one year during the last 10 years whereas financial capacity is required to be assessed in any one year in the last three financial years. Such conditions cannot be said to be unwarranted and arbitrary as the required supply is to be made within one month only. If a tenderer has not manufactured required quantity in any one year in the last ten years, obviously, such manufacturer is not capable of supplying material. Similarly, if a manufacturer has not such turn over, how such firm can ensure supply. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the tender conditions, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The writ petitions are thus dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 4 CWP No.11201 of 2011 & CWP No.11202 of 2011 15.11.2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) meenu/vimal JUDGE 5