Globe Construction Company vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 883 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. A notice inviting tender for works "C/o NSG Headquarters at Palam, New Delhi - Sh: C/o Main Office Building A.C. Plant Room and Electric Sub-station I/C Internal electrical installation and external services like water supply lines, storms water drains, internal roads and paths and sewer lines" was issued by the respondents in the month of July 2001, the eligibility criteria wherefor was:

(A) Should have successfully completed three similar works (at least one of them in Central Government /Central Autonomous Body/ Central PSU each costing not less then Rs. 4.40 crores or two similar successfully completed work costing not less than Rs. 8.80 crores of the following nature during the last seven years ending last day of the month 30/06/2001.

Here, similar work means building work of R.C.C. frames structure with stone cladding on external faces more than three storey high.

(B) Should have had average annual financial turn over of Rs. 3.30 crores on civil construction works during the last three years ending 31st March, 2001.

(C) Should not have incurred any loss in more than two years during the last five years ending 31st March, 2001.

(D) Should have an solvency of Rs. 4.50 crores."

2. The Petitioner offered its bid. According to it, fulfillled the eligibility criteria. Certain qualifications, however, were sought for from the petitioner by the Central Public Works Department in terms of its letter dated 11th September 2001 which is to the following effect:

" For proper scrutiny of your P.Q. application, the following information/ documents are urgently required.

1) As per requirement of clause 7.1 on page 6 of P.Q. application, please intimate the details of similar building works of R.C.C. framed structure with stone cladding on external faces, and more than three storeyed. (duly certified by client department).

2) Similarly as per requirement clause 8.4 on page 7 of P.Q. application please submit performance report for each similar class of work completed in the last 7 years and in hand duly certified by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer of equivalent and should be obtained in sealed cover on form - D and submit the same in original to this office.

(3) The above information/documents may be sent urgently."

3. In response to the said letter, the petitioner by a letter dated 19th September 2001 stated:

"With reference to your letter No. 54 (140)/DAD/2001-02/778 E dated 11/09/2001, it is clarified.

That the certificate at Page No. 9, 10, 16 & 18 submitted along with P.Q. documents are all pertains to RCC framed structure of 8 storeyed. All other work are also of RCC framed structure.

For stone cladding please refer to certificate at page 16, which is a 8 Storeyed building of RCC framed structure.

The other structure with stone cladding is as per certificate at page 20, and this work was executed under your Division.

Regarding para 2 of your letter it is to intimate that we have already furnished the copies of the certificate duly signed and issued by the respective Superintending Engineers and you will appreciate that with number of P.Q. taking place no E.E. issues the certificate again and again.

Submitted for further action please."

4. From the eligibility criteria, as referred to hereinbefore, 'similar work' would mean building work of RCC framed structure with stone cladding on external faces more then three storey high. A bare perusal of the afore-mentioned letter dated 19th September 2001 would show that according to the petitioner itself, its experience was in relation to the following work in respect whereof a certificate had been annexed:

"This is to certify that M/s Globe Construction Co has executed the work of "Construction of office building for state drug authority at Karkarduma Shahdra Delhi". Under the work, the item of work of stone work/cladding work on wall lining (venner work) have been executed. The total quantity of cladding is pprox 2500 sq.m (Two Thousand five hundred). The work has been satisfactorily completed."

5. However, therein the value of the work had not been stated which would appear from the following:

Construction of Office Building for State Drug Authority at F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi.

The work valued at around Rs. 325 Lacs was an RCC framed structure comprising of Basement + 8 Storeyed Building with a basement area of approx 1200 Sqm. The external finish was aluminium curtain wall & White sand stone cladding."

6. The value of another work which was mentioned at page 20 of his bid document, would appear from a certificate which is to the following effect:

" TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that M/s Globe Construction Co., L-76A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi have completed the following items of work as part of the main work of, "Construction of Air Conditioned". Printing Press building at Palam, New Delhi in this Division. The tendered amount of the work was Rs. 1,84,12,909/- and the work was completed on 30.11.95.

 S.No.  Particulars    Approx value in Rs.

1.  False ceiling work,
  with under deck    12,45,800/- 
  insulation. Luxlon
  false ceiling etc.

2.  Dholpur stone, cladding
  in wall veneering, stone
  on pillars, coping, corniees,
  moulded work and stone ashler
  work (Butch work), on sunk 
  and slope portion.   10,25,400/- 

 

The date of start of work was 14-5-92 and that of actual completion as 30.11.95. The E.O.T. has been granted without levy of compensation. The firms is financially and technically very sound."

7. The afore-mentioned certificate would clearly show that the first work was for construction of office building for State Drug Authority at Karkardooma, Delhi, the value of the work whereof was only Rs. 3.25 crores, whereas the second work was printing press building at Palam, the value whereof was Rs. 1.84 crores.

8. Having regard to the eligibility criteria laid down in the notice inviting tender evidently as the petitioner had only completed two similar works, it ought to have completed such work of the value of at least Rs. 5.5 crores each. As value of both the said works was less than Rs. 5.5 crores, the petitioners, in our opinion, has rightly not been held to satisfy the requirements for pre-qualifications.

9. We may, however, notice that Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge that the respondents in their letter dated 11th September 2001 did not state that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria but having regard to the factual matrix as noticed hereinbefore the said contention cannot be accepted.

10. The respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, sought for clarification and a decision had been taken on the basis of the clarification furnished by the petitioner. We have also examined the original records and are satisfied that the contentions of the respondents in this regard are correct.

11. For the reasons afore-mentioned, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly with costs. The Advocate's fee is assessed at Rs. 2000/-.