Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
Global Energy Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors on 3 May, 2005

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ceigall Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others. on 27 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No.15367 of 2010

Date of decision: 27.8.2010

Ceigall Builders Pvt. Ltd.

-----Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others.

-----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioner.

---

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of condition No.9 of the terms and conditions of Tender Notice, Annexure P-1, for carrying out work at Ludhiana-Ferozepur Road

2. Objection of the petitioner is that as per the tender conditions, there is following requirement:- "Experience of having successfully completed similar works during last five years ending last day of months previous to the one in which applications are invited should be either of the following fully supported by the completion of performance certificate issued by the Engineer in charge of the concerned Government/ Semi Government department;

1. Three similar completed works costing not less than Rs.10 crore each.

2. Two similar completed works costing not less than Rs.13 crores each.

CWP No.15367 of 2010 2

3. One similar completed works costing not less than Rs.20 crores each."

3. As against the above, in the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 27.11.2009, Annexure P-2, eligibility could be permitted to those who had average annual turnover of 40% of the value of the contract during last five years. The petitioner fulfilled the said condition but did not fulfill the condition laid down in the tender notice.

4. We are unable to accept the prayer for quashing of tender condition. It is well settled that a condition of the tender is not open to judicial review unless the same is irrational. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 and Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 2653. In the present case, the work to be executed was of value of more than Rs.25 crores. The impugned tender condition cannot be held to be irrelevant or irrational. Mere fact that in the general instructions of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, less stringent conditions have been specified, cannot operate as a bar against more stringent conditions being laid down.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

JUDGE

August 27, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )

ashwani JUDGE