V.K. Dewan & Co. And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1993 Latest Caselaw 217 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) The petitioner is a firm of contractors and is registered with the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.). The petitioner seeks a declaration that he is the lowest tenderer for the award of the work of "Construction of Ground Reservoir and Pumping Station, Rohini-II (Sector XI) Civil Works", and that the tender is illegally being awarded to the fourth respondent, also a contractor.

(2) M.C.D. invited tenders for the said work. Ten contractors including the petitioner and the fourth respondent quoted the rates and it is stated that the lowest tenderer was the fourth respondent at 139.90% above the tender cost.

(3) M.C.D. in answer to show cause notice issued on this petition stated that planning department of the second respondent Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking had worked out the justification for the approximate cost at which the project could be executed which worked out to 99.12% above the tender cost. Technical Communities of the M.C.D. considered the entire matter and was of the view that difference between the rates quoted by various contractors and the justification of rates arrived at by the department was enormous and it, therefore, called upon the fourth respondent to further reduce the rates than the one quoted by it. It is stated that the fourth respondent after great persuation agreed to reduce the rate from 139.90% above to 124% above, and as the reduced rate was even considered to be on higher side, the Technical Committee decided to call upon all the tenderers to give fresh bids. In this second bid it was found that the fourth respondent gave his rate at 123.50% above while the petitioner's rate was 110.00% above. This time the petitioner was the lowest. Other contractors who gave their bids quoted higher rates. It is stated that the Technical Committee again discussed the matter and still was of the opinion that there was still scope to get the rates reduced and that these could be brought to the level of justification worked out earlier by the department. A meeting was, therefore, called which was attended by the petitioner. It is stated that in this meeting the petitioner further reduced its rate from 110% above to 105% above. Yet again the Technical Committee discussed the matter and still was of the opinion that there was yet another scope for reduction of the rates. Though the above meeting was with the petitioner only, this time the Technical Committee decided to call upon all the tenderers to give their bids again for the third time. The fourth respondent this time quoted rate at 98.00% above and five other contractors quoted rates above this rate and the petitioner quoted his rate at 0.25% less than quotation/rate of lowest tenderer/offer. This time the Technical Committee rejected the offer of the petitioner on the ground that the firm did not specifically mention the rate and decided to award the work to the fourth respondent at his reduced offer/rate of 98.00% above the tender cost of Rs.l,26,90,779/ and at a total cost of Rs.2,51,27,743.00 .

(4) We sent for the relevant file of the M.C.D. and examined various nothings and the correspondence existing therein. The petitioner has questioned the bonafides of the respondents in the whole process and said that whole idea was to favor the fourth respondent. It certainly does appear to us to be rather odd that when fourth respondent after great persuation agreed to reduce the rate originally quoted by it from 139.90% above to 124% above the tender cost, how could it be that now it quoted rate at 98.00% above the tender cost. The way the things have gone about the whole concept of tender appears to have been lost. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner could have been asked to specify the rate and not the negotiations could have been held further if the fourth respondent was quite keen to bring down the rate. We agree, however, with the respondents M.C.D. that to quote as 0.25% less than the lowest tender/offer is no way of quoting rate and, but for the circumstances of this case, respondents M.C.D. should have been right to reject such a tender.

(5) It was stated that in similar circumstances in the year 1980-81 M.C.D. accepted quotation of one Ram Babu & Co., contractors, for the award of certain work where that firm quoted rate as Rs.5,000.00 lower than the lowest. An affidavit of this firm has been filed by the M.C.D. It has been admitted that though this had been done. but this action of the M.C.D. came to adverse comment by the Central Vigilance Commission who had observed that the offer of M/s. Babu Ram & Co. was not as per normal practice and either fresh offers should have been obtained clearly specifying that the contractors should quote specific amount for the work or the offer of M/s. Babu Ram & Co. should have not been considered. It was further observed that the decision of the Technical Committee in this regard was not proper and needed justification. It is stated that thereafter the respondents have never accepted any tender when the offer is on the lines given by M/s. Babu Ram & Co., or that of the petitioner. However, as the case may be, we are of the opinion that in the present case the petitioner should have been asked to give specific rate and negotiations could also have been held for lowering the rate as had been done earlier, though we do not say that these observations of our would give a precedent for any other case.

(6) In this view of the matter, the present petition succeeds. The decision of the Technical Committee in accepting the tender of the fourth respondent is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents-M.C.D. to call for fresh tenders and to take further steps in the matter as per law.