Classic Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Line Tank Road, Ranchi v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- For the Petitioner: --------- M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Rahul Kumar, Apoorva Singh, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 03/Dated: 29.03.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) ORDER 1) By filing this writ petition, this petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decision of the Tender Committee dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-3/1) as contained in Memo No.933(S)WE dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure- 3) issued under the signature of the Respondent-Engineer-in- Chief, whereby and whereunder the Tender Committee has arbitrarily declared the petitioner’s technical bid as non- responsive on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as contained in Clause 4.5B(b) and in view of single responsive tender, re-tender has been directed although the Petitioner fulfills the requisite condition and has also filed undertaking along with the affidavit of the key personnel to be deployed in the contract work.

And/Or -2- For issuance of appropriate and suitable direction or command upon the respondent authorities to declare the petitioner’s bid relation tender reference no. RCD/GODDA/1145/2022-23 Tender ID : 2022_CECOM_62895_1) Ranchi-13/2016-17- in relation to Reconstruction of Mahagama (Kechua Chowk) to Digghi Road (MDR-201) including bridges (Total Length-11.597 Km) as responsive And direct for opening up of financial Bid of the petitioner and the other responsive bidder so that the tender is awarded to the lowest and competitive bidder. 2) Facts are not in dispute. A tender was floated by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, on 04.11.2022. The petitioner participated in the tender. However, his tender was rejected on the ground that he did not satisfy the conditions of the Standard Bidding Document appearing in (b) of Clause 4.5 B (page No.32) which provides that the petitioner has to annex appropriate document regarding availability for the work in question of personnel with adequate experience as required as per Annexure-II. Annexure-II provides that there should be six different types of personnel starting from Project Manager to Survey Engineer.

The Project Manager has to have the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil with 15 years of experience with five years as Manager. 3) We have carefully examined the affidavit of the concerned employee of the petitioner which is page 88. Contents of this affidavit do not show that the said employee had an experience of 15 years in Civil Works and five years as a Manager. So, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate manifestly an error committed against him and we are of the opinion that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the authorities as he does not -3- satisfy the requisite qualification in terms of deployment of personnel for the work. 4) We have also examined the affidavit of the Site Engineer. It also does not show that she has the requisite 10 years of experience having five years experience in road construction. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5) 6) No orders as to costs. Urgent copies as per Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Manoj/- (Ananda Sen, J.)