Case: Tejas Construction &amp; Infras.Pvt.Ltd Vs. Municipal Council Sendhwa

by the Municipal Council and respondent No.2, the contention that the latter was not eligible on the ground stated by the appellant has been stoutly denied. Respondent-Council has, inter alia, stated: To satisfy this condition, respondent no.2 has placed on record the certificate issued by Municipal Council Upleta, whereby respondent No.2 was awarded construction of similar work and has completed the work on 15.8.2010 for a sum of Rs.14,96,78,721/-. Not merely this, to show his experience, respondent No.2 has filed various certificates relating to work at Bardoli, as well as certificate issued by Gujarat Urban Development Mission, demonstrating that he has undertaken the work of 87,21,36,172/- of the similar/somewhat similar nature. In this regard it is worth noticing that the only requirement under this clause was to have executed single work of integrated water supply scheme having above referred components in it and it was not at all necessary for a bidder to have constructed all the components himself but he could have used the existing components, as such it is inconsequential as to whether respondent No.2 has infact constructed intake well and water treatment plant in Upleta, but it is of utmost importance that Respondent No.2 should have experience of having executed integrated water supply scheme. 17. To the same effect is the case set up by respondent No.2 who has stated as under: I say and submit that the only requirement as per the said eligibility condition was to have executed a single work of integrated water supply scheme comprising of all the components, such as intake well, raw/clean water, pumping main, pumps, water treatment plants, over head tanks, distribution system etc., but it was not necessary for the bidder to have himself constructed all the components of integrated water supply scheme. As such to show his experience in the said matter, respondent No.2 also has placed on record certificate issued by Bardoli Nagar Seva Sadan, (Annexure P/10 Page 78 of SLP), wherein respondent No.2 has constructed water treatment plant of 13.5 MLD capacity……………… They have carried out the work of integrated water supply for Upleta Municipal Council for a sum of Rs.14.97 crores, similarly respondent No.2 have also carried augmentation water supply scheme for Bardoli Incorporation Seva Sadan of Rs.4.35 crores, integrated drinking water supply scheme for Vyara project of Rs.6.84 crores, Unjha Water Supply Project of Rs.13.19 crores, Jaitpur Water Project Rs. 16.25 crores, Songarh Integrated Drinking Water Supply Scheme Rs.5.21 crores, Vapi Water Works of Rs.4.00 crores, Jasadan Water Suppply Scheme of Rs.3.05 crores, Rajula Water Supply Scheme of Rs.3.83 crores, Idar Water Supply Scheme of Rs.4.74 crores, Viramgam Water Supply Project Rs.6.92 crores, Amreli City Pipeline Distribution Work Rs.6.49 crores, thus the respondent No.2 have executed works of similar nature of Rs.87.21 crores, whereas the present work was for only Rs.20.80 crores, additionally respondent No.2 is executing similar work of about Rs.40.50 crores at Dholka, Dhandhuka, Ankleshwar, Gondal, Jasdan and Dhorangdhra. Thus respondent No.2 is competent to execute the present work, a copy of list of works executed by respondent No.2 under Gujarat Urban Development Mission duly certified by the G.M. (Technical) of said organization are already annexed as Annexure P/8 (Page 69 of SLP). It is worth mentioning here that average turnover of respondent No.2 during last 5 years ignoring figures of 2010-11 is Rs.45.14 crores and average net worth of respondent No.2 for last 5 years ignoring figures of 2010-11 is Rs. 9.018 crores. 18. The High Court has, while examining the question of eligibility of respondent No.2 by reference to the execution of the single integrated water supply scheme, recorded a finding that the nature of the work executed by respondent No.2 for Upleta satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. That finding, in our view, is in no way irrational or absurd. We say so because the certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 sufficiently demonstrates that respondent No.2 had designed, and executed an integrated water supply scheme for Upleta which included raw water transmission from intake wells and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying of pipelines, construction of E.S.R.s, Sumps, Pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery. 19. It is also noteworthy that in the matter of evaluation of the bids and determination of the eligibility of the bidders Municipal Council had the advantage of the aid & advice of an empanelled consultant, a technical hand, who could well appreciate the significance of the tender condition regarding the bidder executing the single integrated water supply scheme and fulfilling that condition of tender by reference to the work undertaken by them. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court of the allotment of work made in favour of respondent No.2. 20. We may while parting point out that out of a total of Rs.19.5 crores representing the estimated value of the contract, respondent No.2 is certified to have already executed work worth Rs.11.50 crores and received a sum of Rs.8.79 crores towards the said work. More importantly the work in question relates to a drinking water supply scheme for the residents of a scarcity stricken municipality. The project is sponsored with the Central Government assistance under its urban infrastructure scheme for small and middle towns. The completion target of the scheme is September 2012. Any interference with the award of the contract at this stage is bound to delay the execution of the work and put the inhabitants of the municipal area to further hardship. Interference with the on-going work is, therefore, not conducive to public interest which can be served only if the scheme is completed as expeditiously as possible giving relief to the thirsting residents of Sendhwa. This is particularly so when the allotment of work in favour of respondent No.2 does not involve any extra cost in comparison to the cost that may be incurred if the contract was allotted to the appellant-company. 21. In the light of the above settled legal position and in

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

Explanation:
0[ds]18. The High Court has, while examining the question of eligibility of respondent No.2 by reference to the execution of the single integrated water supply scheme, recorded a finding that the nature of the work executed by respondent No.2 for Upleta satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. That finding, in our view, is in no way irrational or absurd. We say so because the certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 sufficiently demonstrates that respondent No.2 had designed, and executed an integrated water supply scheme for Upleta which included raw water transmission from intake wells and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying of pipelines, construction of E.S.R.s, Sumps, Pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery19. It is also noteworthy that in the matter of evaluation of the bids and determination of the eligibility of the bidders Municipal Council had the advantage of the aid & advice of an empanelled consultant, a technical hand, who could well appreciate the significance of the tender condition regarding the bidder executing the single integrated water supply scheme and fulfilling that condition of tender by reference to the work undertaken by them. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court of the allotment of work made in favour of respondent No.220. We may while parting point out that out of a total of Rs.19.5 crores representing the estimated value of the contract, respondent No.2 is certified to have already executed work worth Rs.11.50 crores and received a sum of Rs.8.79 crores towards the said work. More importantly the work in question relates to a drinking water supply scheme for the residents of a scarcity stricken municipality. The project is sponsored with the Central Government assistance under its urban infrastructure scheme for small and middle towns. The completion target of the scheme is September 2012. Any interference with the award of the contract at this stage is bound to delay the execution of the work and put the inhabitants of the municipal area to further hardship. Interference with the on-going work is, therefore, not conducive to public interest which can be served only if the scheme is completed as expeditiously as possible giving relief to the thirsting residents of Sendhwa. This is particularly so when the allotment of work in favour of respondent No.2 does not involve any extra cost in comparison to the cost that may be incurred if the contract was allotted to the appellant-company