AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:
I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the cancellation order of the tender, which is mentioned in the letter dated 28.08.2010 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition).
II. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to finalize the tender in favour of the Petitioner and give the agreement work to the Petitioner as per the expression of interest form.
III. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IV. Award cost of the petition.
V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice of retender/letter No. G-25/Tender/Infra:Mtce/GMTC/NT/2010-11/7 dated 18.09.2010 issued by the Respondents (Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition).
Brief facts of the case are that technical bid of the Petitioner was opened on 20.06.2010 and thereafter financial bide was opened on 30.06.2010. The tender of the Petitioner was lowest but Higher Power Committee of the Respondent department, after considering the rates quoted by the Petitioner, came to the conclusion that as per TEC Report and rate available in concerned file, rate of lowest bidder (Petitioner) in Nainital SSA are Rs. 7149 per shift per month. On comparing these rates with the approved rates of the neighboring SSAs it is seen that rate are higher 246% with respect to Moradabad SSA, which are on very higher side for similar Expression of Interest (herein after referred as EOI for short) and similar work. In view of rates being very high and advice of IFA office of GMTD Nainital on note sheet in this regard, Committee is of the opinion and recommended that this EOI may be cancelled and a fresh EOI may be floated. It is further stated that on the recommendation of the Committee, EOI of Petitioner was cancelled on 24.08.2010.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Respondent has submitted in reply that the rates of the Petitioner was on higher side therefore, on the recommendation of Higher Power Committee, the EOI "Expression of Interest" of the Petitioner was rightly cancelled and the Respondent as per Clause 8.1. and 8.2 of agreement have a right to cancel the EOI of the Petitioner without assigning any reason. As per Clause 9 of EOI dated 11.05.2010, department reserves the right to reject the application/EOI without assigning any reason.
In view of the above clauses, on the basis of the report of Higher Power Committee of the Respondent department, the tender (EOI) has been cancelled by the Respondent since the rate quoted by the Petitioner was on higher side.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent authority floated a new tender (EOI). Learned Assistant Solicitor General has stated that the Petitioner did not file fresh tender (EOI) and other persons have filed their tender, which was opened on 11.10.2010. The Petitioner did not participate in the new tender process, therefore, they have no right to participate further.
I have perused the record available on file. After perusal of Clause 8.1 and 8.2 of the agreement and Clause 9 of EOI, the Respondent authority have a right to cancel the tender if it is on the higher side. Prior to cancellation of tender of the Petitioner, Higher Power Committee has scrutinized the fact as to whether the tender of the Petitioner is on higher side or not and it was found that the same was on higher side and on the recommendation of the Higher Power Committee, the tender of the Petitioner has rightly been cancelled by the Respondent as per Clause 8.1 and 8.2 of the agreement and Clause 9 of EOI.
In judicial review the Court can see the decision making process and not the decision. The process has been adopted by the Respondent department in accordance with the terms and conditions of the EOI.
Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed in limine.