AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing Clause-1.6 of the Standard Technical Criteria notified by the respondent/Railways while calling
tenders for performing the work of supply of ballast. It is stated that the tender notice has been issued on 10.04.2019.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by Clause-1.6 of the Standard Technical Criteria notified in
the tender notice which delineates the definition of similar work to mean supply of machine crushed ballast for Railways. It is submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in the previous tenders issued by the other Railway Zones, such a restrictive definition of similar work was not
prescribed and any person who had undertaken civil work of similar nature has been made eligible. It is further submitted that by the instant tender
notice, the definition of similar work has been restricted to supply of machine crushed ballast for Railways alone. He submits that such a restrictive
Clause is arbitrary and discriminatory as it excludes other eligible persons from participating in the tender proceedings.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through paragraph No.5.13 of this petition and submits that the petitioner No.2 had
submitted a bid in response to a similar tender floated by the respondents in January, 2019 thereby petitioner No.2 was excluded/disqualified though no
order of disqualification was ever communicated to him. Though the petitioner No.2 later learnt that the reason for disqualification was the impugned
condition under challenge.
The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondents have again floated a fresh tender with the same condition and, therefore, the petitioners
apprehend that they would again be disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings, hence this petition.
In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners have not applied or filed any application pursuant to the impugned tender notice issued in
April, 2019 and have filed the present petition on the apprehension that they would be disqualified, and as stated by the petitioners themselves in
paragraph No.5.13 of the petition no order of disqualification on this ground has ever been communicated to the them.
Quite apart from the above, it is also evident that the respondent/authorities by their communication/letter dated 23.01.2019 in supersession of all
earlier instructions, regarding the definition of similar nature of work to be incorporated in the tenders, has defined and modified the same. It is also
clear from a perusal of the documents Annexures-P-7 and P-10 filed by the petitioners that the they have filed a representation before the authorities
in respect of the confusion in their mind regarding the definition of similar work.
In view of the aforesaid facts that both the petitioners have not applied pursuant to the impugned tender notice issued by the respondents; that the
petitioner No.1 is himself a supplier of ballast to the Railways and does not fall foul of Clause-1.6 of the General Conditions; that the Railways had
themselves issued a clarification regarding the definition of similar work on 23.01.2019, and that the petitioners have approached the Railway
Authorities by filing a representation in this regard, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition at this stage as the same is premature.
We, accordingly dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondent/Railways, who is represented on advance copy by Smt. Amrit Ruprah,
Advocate to look into the representation of the petitioners and take a decision thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably
before the last date of submitting the bid.
The petitioners may take up any other grievance, with the authorities, if so advised.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of.
Certified copy today.