Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.22 18:43:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:22254-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2648 of 2025 1 - M/s Satish Gupta, A Proprietorship Firm Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Ravendra Kumar Aged About 34 Years, S/o Kedar Singh R/o House No. 13, Ward No. 2, Jyoti Nagar, Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, SECL Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager (E And M) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Post Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Director Technical (O) SECL Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Staff OfÏcer (E And M) SECL Kusmunda Area, Post Kusmunda Colliery, District Korba (C.G.) 5 - General Manager (E And M) Hod, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, SECL Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 6 - Regional General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.) 7 - M/s Bhagwan Sharan And Associates Manikpur, Dadarkhurd, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)- 495682 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner For SECL/Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.5.2025 1. Heard Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Pankaj Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the SECL/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the 3 impugned orders dated 02.05.25 (Annexure P-1) passed by Res.no.2 and Order dated 25.04.25 (Annexure P-2) passed by Res.no.2. 10.3 That, the petitioner further prays that a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondents to accept the technical bid of the petitioner and open the financial bid of the petitioner and allot the works with respect to the subject tender notice bearing No. SECL/GM/KSM/EnM/e-tender/24-25 /94 was published on 23.12.24. 10.4 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 3. The instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned arbitrary orders whereby the respondent (SECL) has rejected the technical bid submitted by the petitioner contrary to the terms and conditions prescribed in the tender notice itself. The respondent authorities have failed to objectively assess the past work experience of works of similar nature executed by petitioner for the same nature of works (laying and transportation of pipelines). The tender notice NIT No. SECL/GM/KSM/EnM/e-tender/24-25/94 was published on 23.12.24 inviting applications from suitable bidders for laying and transportation of 8 ranges of MS Delivery Lines at Departmental Patch Sumps. The description of the work is substantially concerned with the laying and erection of pipelines in the mines operated by respondent SECL. The estimated value of the works was Rs.1,79,54,927/- and the bidder was required to submit 4 the details of past work experience comprising one similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost put to tender. In other words, if a bidder submits the details of past work experience of similar nature of about Rs.1,43,63,941/-, the bidder would be deemed to be successful and eligible as per technical specifications in the technical bid. In the instant case the petitioner admittedly and undisputedly submitted the details of past work experience certified by Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh amounting to Rs.3,75,54,800/-. The nature of past works executed by petitioner was concerned with "work of water supply scheme of Jhik Bhujuri, Bokramar, Chitraudi, Bacharwar and Bartar". The respondent SECL have themselves cross verified the past work experience submitted by the petitioner from PHE Department Madhya Pradesh. The respondent SECL instead of properly appreciating the certificate issued by PHE Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh duly certifying that items at Sr. No.1, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 is also related to pipelines works executed by the petitioner acted in a most arbitrary manner rejected the technical bid of the petitioner holding that the above referred items does not constitute works of similar nature i.e. (laying and erection of pipelines). The respondent SECL further committed gross illegality and arbitrariness by bifurcating and breaking down the technical bid in different components. It is submitted that the technical bid was submitted for past work experience amounting to Rs.3,75,54,800/- as against the estimated value of the bid amounting to Rs.1,79,54,927/-. It is submitted that as per tender conditions the 5 bidder was required to submit past experience of at least one similar work equal to 80% of the estimated cost put to tender which comes to Rs.1,43,63,942/-. The petitioner submitted the details of work experience amounting to Rs.3,75,54,800/- duly verified by the PHE department, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the work experience certificate was also cross checked and verified by SECL from the PHE department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Out of the total work experience as required in the NIT by the respondent SECL of laying pipelines. The petitioner has submitted the work experience certificate issued by PHE department, Government of Madhya Pradesh amounting to Rs.1,42,10,132/- along with 5% weightage on the value of the bid. The respondent SECL arbitrarily rejected the technical bid without considering the past experience certificate issued by PHE department, Government of Madhya Pradesh which was further verified and cross checked by the respondent SECL. The respondent SECL vide impugned order rejected the items at Sr. No.1, 16, 17, 18, 38 & 40 holding that it does not concerns with the pipelines works whereas the certificate issued by PHE department, Government of M.P. that the above referred items is related to pipelines works. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no provision in the entire tender notice for bifurcation of the value of the bid under different heads. The petitioner has submitted work experience valuing Rs.3,75,54,800/- as against the estimated value of the works required as per NIT which was only Rs.1,79,54,927/-. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 6 petitioner has submitted his technical bid in the prescribed format along with the requisite experience certificate issued by PHE department, Government of M.P. for same nature of works for which the past experience was sought by the respondents. The petitioner has submitted the technical bid with experience certificate valued over and above the estimated value of works as notified in NIT. In the entire NIT, there is absolutely no provision for bifurcation of the works into different components, in the instant case the petitioner has submitted the details of past experience amounting to Rs.3,75,54,800/- as against the estimated value of the work amounting to Rs.1,79,54,927/-. The petitioner has also submitted experience certificate issued by PHE department specifically certifying that the petitioner has executed the works of similar nature (laying and erection of pipelines). The certificate issued by PHE department was also cross checked and verified by the respondents in their own internal assessment. The impugned orders have been passed violating the provisions of NIT in as much as there is no provision of bifurcation of single work into different components and the experience certificate issued by the PHE department has also been cross checked and verified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the SECL/respondents submits that the bidder/petitioner failed to fulfill the minimum work experience criteria of NIT, thereby, failing to qualify the eligibility criteria of NIT, the offer of the petitioner has been rejected and, therefore, the bid of the petitioner is not eligible for price bid opening. 7 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders and the material available on record with due care. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties as also after going through the material available, we find that there is no illegality in the action on the part of the SECL/respondents as the bidder/petitioner failed to fulfill the minimum work experience criteria and did not qualify the eligibility criteria of NIT. The SECL/respondents rightly found that the bid of the petitioner is not eligible for price bid opening. 8. In the result, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Judge Chief Justice Gopal Singh