M/S.Innovative Systems v. The Superintending Engineer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3753 & 3755 of 2024 M/s.Innovative Systems, Represented through its Proprietor M.Sudharson, Having Office at 48/5, F4 F5, Calvin Tower, M.G.Raj Trade Park, South Bye-Pass Road, ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer, Directorate of Town Panchyat, 75, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director, 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, 4.The Executive Officer, Gopalasamudram Town Panchayat, Gopalasamudram, 1/6
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tenkasi.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 13.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to call for fresh tender by following due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Alwin Balan For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5.
2. The fourth respondent herein issued the tender notification dated 22.11.2023 calling for applications from eligible contractors for construction of Primary Health Centre Building. The petitioner applied in response thereto. The petitioner's tender application was rejected at the technical scrutiny stage. 2/6
Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In fact, finding prima facie merit in petitioner's counsel's contention, I granted an interim order on 20.02.2024. The interim order reads as follows:- "Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. It has been prima facie demonstrated that the technical evaluation of the petitioner's tender was not done properly. One Malathi was the executive officer of Gopalasamudram Town Panchayat. She was transferred on 23.12.2023. She was relieved on 29.12.2023. The executive officer of the Melaseval Town Panchayat had taken additional charge on 03.01.2024. The technical evaluation was done on 12.01.2024. The name of Malathi. Prima facie, Malathi appears to be associated with the technical evaluation process. That apart, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tenkasi Division, Department of Town Panchayat had done the technical valuation.
3. The petitioner's counsel would state that the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli Division ought to have done the technical evaluation. Something is not in order. The respondents are restrained from finalizing the tender process till the disposal of the writ petition."
4. Counter affidavit has been filed. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner's tender application came to be rejected because he did not fulfill the condition set out in Clause 4.1 A(2). The said 3/6
clause reads as follows:- "(2) The applicants should have been in the Civil Engineering Construction field at-least for the past five years. (2016-17 to 2020-21). He should submit the audited balance sheet for last five years." In the counter filed by the second respondent, the following averment is found. "14(I) As regard the ground No.(a), it is submitted that the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected for non compliance of Tender Clause No.4.1.A2 and failure to submit the proof for existence in the filed of Civil Construction for the past five years. The petitioner cannot declare his eligibility by submitting for few years or random compliances of tender conditions. Hence, this ground is not at all maintainable."
5. The original files have been made available. I went through the audited balance sheet filed by the petitioner along with the tender application. It does not specifically indicate that the petitioner has experience in civil engineering construction field for the preceding five years. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the audited balance sheet must specifically indicate the petitioner's turn over from out of the said field of business. It is for this reason I sustain the stand taken by the respondents. It is also clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General that there was difference of opinion between the two members of the scrutiny committee and the matter was referred to the third engineer. The third engineer namely 5th respondent herein also took the view that the petitioner did not pass muster. 4/6
However, he had used the digital signature of the previous incumbent.
6. From a perusal of the original files, I am satisfied that this stand is in accord with the file notes and record. No ground is made out for interference. Interim order is vacated. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.03.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 18.03.2024 To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Directorate of Town Panchyat, 75, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director, 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi 5/6
4.The Executive Officer, Gopalasamudram Town Panchayat, Gopalasamudram, 5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tenkasi.
15.03.2024 6/6