1. Heard Mr.Bharat Gulabani, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as respondent No. 4.
2. The respondent No. 2 issued an e-tender (No. 90498) for construction of a school building “Prayas Awasiya School Bhavan†at District
Jashpur with an estimated cost of Rs. 726.40 lakhs.
3. The qualification criteria as laid down in the e-tender at clause 16 reads as follows:
“16. Qualification Criteria:-
To qualify for award of the Contract, each Prime Contractor in the same name and style (tendered), in its name must have in the last five years
Achieved in “any one financial year†a financial turnover (in all civil engineering construction works) of construction work of at least 60% (Sixty
percent) of the probable amount of contract for which bid has been invited.
(i) Satisfactorily completed at least one similar work equivalent value 50% (Fifty percent) of the Probable amount of contract as on date of submission
of financial offer.
OR
(ii) Satisfactorily completed at least two similar works each costing minimum 40% (Fourty percent) of the probable amount of contract for which the
tender is invited as on date of submission of financial offer.â€
4. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process. An e-mail, stated to be sent on 11.03.2022, was sent to the petitioner. The same reads as
follows:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
This is to inform you that your organization has been rejected during Part-I (Envelope B) evaluation (i.e. Techno-commercial evaluation) by the tender
owner, for Tender No. 90498 of Directorate of Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development (DTSCD) department on Mar 11, 2022 2:53:23 PM due to
Experience Certificate not issued by Competent authority.
Hence you will not be allowed to participate in price bid opening for this tender. For further clarifications please contact the tender owner for this
case.
Assuring you, the best of our services at all times.
Regards.
CG e-PROC SYSTEM TEAMâ€
5. A perusal of the above would go to show that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate submitted by the
petitioner was not issued by the competent authority.
6. The petitioner had submitted a work completion certificate dated 09.02.2022 in respect of two works certified by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tribal
Welfare Department, Jagdalpur and Sub-Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpur.
7. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 to 3, it is stated that the Sub Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to issue the work completion
certificate. It is also stated that the petitioner was issued an experience certificate by the office of the Collector, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, through the
Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development and Nodal Officer, District Construction Committee, Jagdalpur on 03.02.2022, i.e. one day prior to the
last date of submission of the tender.
8. Ms. Astha Shukla submits that similar stand as taken by respondents No. 1 to 3 was taken in the affidavit of the respondent No. 4. Ms. Shukla
draws attention of this Court to page 23 of the writ petition papers with particular reference to clause 10 “Details of work in hand. (certified by
EE)â€, and on the basis thereof, submits that the experience certificate has to be certified by an Executive Engineer. It is further submitted by her that
the Assistant Commissioner and Nodal Officer i.e. the respondent No. 4 is equivalent in rank with Executive Engineer. Accordingly, she submits that
the certificate produced by the petitioner being not issued by the respondent No. 4 or by the Executive Engineer, it was rightly held that the tender of
the petitioner was not compliant of the tender conditions. Drawing attention of the Court to page 89 of the writ petition papers, she further submits that
in the certificate issued by the respondent No. 4, the work done by the petitioner was shown to be incomplete.
9. Drawing attention of this Court to page 24 of the reply of respondent No. 4, Mr. Gulabani submits that the petitioner had completed the works.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions as laid down, completion certificate is to be issued by the Sub Divisional Officer/Collector, and therefore, the
contention of Ms. Shukla that the Sub Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to issue the certificate, is without any substance. Further
contention of Mr. Gulabani is that reliance placed at serial No. 10 of page 23 relating to ‘details of works in hand’ does not anywhere refer to
completion of work and it denotes only to the works that are currently being undertaken by the intending tenderer and therefore, the premise on which
the argument was advanced by Ms. Shukla that completion certificate has to be issued by the Executive Engineer, is without any basis. In this
connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to clause 6 of page 23, which reads as “Details of similar work as per eligibility†to contend
that the petitioner had submitted experience certificate through competent authority.
10. It is further submitted that reliance placed by Ms. Shukla on page 89 of the writ petition, which is a certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpur and Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development and Nodal Officer, District Construction Committee,
Jagdalpur, is undated and that it is manifest that the same was issued at a point of time prior to the issuance of the certificate dated 09.02.2022.
11. We see much substance in the argument of Mr. Gulabani.
12. Clause 6 of the terms of the tender conditions under which the petitioner completed the works, visualised completion certificate to be issued by the
Sub Divisional Officer. The respondent No. 4 is not an entity which is recognized to issue completion certificate. The certificate of the Sub Divisional
Officer, in categorical terms, states that the works given to the petitioner had satisfactorily been completed. Therefore, the view taken by the
tendering authority that the petitioner had not given the completion certificate from the competent authority, is found to be devoid of any merit.
13. In view of the above discussion, the respondent authorities are directed to treat the bid of the petitioner to be a valid bid and accordingly, a writ of
mandamus is issued to the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents will proceed in accordance with law.
14. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
