Case: M/S. Continental Construction Ltd Vs. Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors

in regard to PCL-Intertech : Lenhydro Consortium based on information/documents furnished by them, that the annual turnover of M/s Progressive during the years 1998-99 has been Rs. 158.1 crores. The joint venture partners, M/s Institute Lenhydro Project, Russia have successfully completed 140 M. high concrete gravity dam on Bureya river for Bureya Hydroelectric Project. Ruassia involving 35 Lac cum of concrete placement. The peak rate of concrete placed by the party in a single month on this project was more than the required rate of 20,000 cum. It was also noted that M/s Progressive achieved a monthly rate of 2,50,307 cum for earth and rock excavation in the month of June, 1994 for Srisailam Right band Canal work. M/s Institute Lenhydro Project, having worked on Bureya HEP, Russia, have adequate experience in Reinforced Cement Concrete Technology. Based on the information provided, and documents submitted by this Joint Venture in response to the pre-qualification tenders, the Standing Committee recommended pre-qualification of PCL-Intertech Lenhydro Consortium Joint Venture. It was intimated to the applicant that since the pre-qualifying requirements relating to concreting were being met by the consortium of Intertech : Lenhydro Project, Intertech. Lenhydro Consortium needs to be nominated as the leader of the Joint Venture. This was accepted and confirmed by the applicant vide letter No. PCL/ND/THDC/2000/2275 dated 22nd May, 2000. 6. Based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the answering respondent, THDC, pre-qualified seven parties in June, 2001 including the Joint Venture of M/s Progressive Construction Limited and Consortium of Intertech-Lenhydro, Russia, for submission or bids for the civil construction works of Koteshwar Hydroelectric Project. In view of these pleadings, the High Court held that on consideration of the rival submissions and pleading on record, it is abundantly clear that respondent No.2 is fully qualified and eligible to carry out the contract and the writ Petitioner did not, before the bids were opened, raise any objection regarding the experience and financial capacity of respondent No.2. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. In this case the respondents had entered caveats. We asked them, even at the stage of preliminary hearing before issuing notice, to address the arguments on the merits or the matter. Having heard the parties in the case, we have passed this order. 3. In the writ petition filed before the High Court the petitioner contended (i) that one of the constituents of the second respondent Lenhydro Project is not a company engaged in actual physical execution/construction of workers; rather, it was only a design firm; (ii) the Intertech Service is not a Construction Company engaged/having experience in actual execution/construction of concrete Dam, Spillway and Power House Works; (iii) The statement made by the authorised signatory of the Lenhydro Project that the said constituent has executed the Bureya Hydro-electric Project, far east Russia is not correct as in fact the said project has been built by JSC Buguchangesstroy as turn key contractor. 4. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a letter issued by the SHC Institute Hydro Projects and letter dated May 25, 2002 by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russia Federation which stated that LENGIBROPROYEKT is a specialized design engineering company in the filed of hydro-electric projects where it enjoys goods standing as a design firm. This firm does not involve itself in executing projects nor is it known to associate or act as a turn-key contractor; that letter dated 22.11.1999 [Annexure P/12] issued by the Bureya Hydro Power Project is ambiguous inasmuch as it only refers to successful completion of the contract by the Russian constituent of the second respondent without any details thereto; that the Bureya Hydro Power Project on Bureya River was, in fact, constructed by Boguchangesstroy as a turn-key contractor as per the information obtained from the Reference list of the Project built by the JSC Boguchangesstroy for the years 1997-2000. It is also contended that during the period from 1993 to 1997 the Lenhydro project merely got executed construction work project at the Bureya Hydro Power Station even as per certificate dated 15th July, 2002 issued by the Chief Engineer of the Parent Company of the Russian Constituent of the 2nd respondent. On this basis it is contended that the second respondent had not placed any satisfactory material to show that it had necessary experience as required under the pre-qualification documents. 5. The letters issued by the SHC Institute Hydro Projects and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation do not specifically deal with whether the 2nd respondent had in fact executed the construction work of Bureya Hydro-Power Station project but makes general reference. The Reference List obtained from the Internet gives information from 1997 onwards and not for the earlier period. Therefore, these three documents are not helpful to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that Bureya Hydro-Power Station project is a multi-stage project; that during period 1993-1997, the Russian Constituent of the 2nd respondent was entrusted with the construction, technical support and quality control of Bureya Hydro-Power Station project and they were providing construction machinery, material, manpower etc. during the execution of works. Certificate issued on 1.8.2002 in this regard by the parent company is made available by the 2nd respondent. Another certificate dated June 11, 2002 was relied upon along with the letter dated 22.11.1999 issued in this regard. Next stage of project from 1998 onwards was executed by a sub-contractor JSC Boguchangesstroy and Boguchangesstroy had not figured for the earlier period prior to 1998. This project has nothing to do with the earlier project. The clear stand of the respondents on the basis of these documents is that apart from general designing work they were also engaged in actual construction of the project. If upon the material made available to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent its pre-qualification has been decided, the High Court in justified in not interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. In this case the respondents had entered caveats. We asked them, even at the stage of preliminary hearing before issuing notice, to address the arguments on the merits or the matter. Having heard the parties in the case, we have passed this order.5. The letters issued by the SHC Institute Hydro Projects and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation do not specifically deal with whether the 2nd respondent had in fact executed the construction work of Bureya Hydro-Power Station project but makes general reference. The Reference List obtained from the Internet gives information from 1997 onwards and not for the earlier period. Therefore, these three documents are not helpful to the petitioner.The stand of the respondents is that Bureya Hydro-Power Station project is a multi-stage project; that during period 1993-1997, the Russian Constituent of the 2nd respondent was entrusted with the construction, technical support and quality control of Bureya Hydro-Power Station project and they were providing construction machinery, material, manpower etc. during the execution of works.Certificate issued on 1.8.2002 in this regard by the parent company is made available by the 2nd respondent. Another certificate dated June 11, 2002 was relied upon along with the letter dated 22.11.1999 issued in this regard. Next stage of project from 1998 onwards was executed by a sub-contractor JSC Boguchangesstroy and Boguchangesstroy had not figured for the earlier period prior to 1998. This project has nothing to do with the earlier project. The clear stand of the respondents on the basis of these documents is that apart from general designing work they were also engaged in actual construction of the project. If upon the material made available to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent its pre-qualification has been decided, the High Court in justified in not interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution.