Delhi High Court
M/S Shivalik Prismo India Pvt. Ltd vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 October, 2013
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2013
+ W.P.(C) No. 6294/2013
M/S SHIVALIK PRISMO INDIA PVT. LTD ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) No. 6295/2013
M/S SHIVALIK PRISMO INDIA PVT. LTD ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Hemant Bassi, Mr Baldev Sharma
For the Respondent : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms Sana Ansari
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. In these two writ petitions challenge has been made to the fact that
the bids of the petitioner have been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner was ineligible to participate in the tender owing to the fact that
the petitioner is not a CPWD class-1 contractor. The tenders were invited
in respect of road marking with Thermoplastic paint. The NITs are dated
29.07.2013 and 01.08.2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not at
all necessary for the petitioner to be a CPWD registered class-1
contractor inasmuch as road marking with Thermoplastic paint was a
specialized item and for that purpose the condition of being a registered
CPWD contractor was not at all necessary. He drew our attention to
section 16 of the CPWD works manual which deals with tenders for
specialized works and annual rate contract system for maintenance and
minor works. As per paragraph 16.10 the list of specialized items/jobs
for civil/electrical/ horticulture works have been specified in Annexure-1.
Annexure-1 contains a list of the specialized items/jobs for civil works
and item no. (41) specifies- "signages".
3. Paragraph 16.6(2) indicates that it is not necessary for the
specialized agencies who tender for the work to be registered with the
engineering departments of the Central or the State Governments.
4. It is therefore clear that if specialized works are to be carried out,
specialized agencies need not be registered with the CPWD and/or other
engineering departments of the Central/ State Government. The whole
question here is whether road marking with Thermoplastic paint is a
specialized item/ job or not. As indicated above, serial no. (41) of
Annexure-1 refers to "signages" as being a part of the list of specialized
items/jobs for civil works. It is the contention of the petitioner that road
marking with Thermoplastic paint falls within the expression "signages".
However, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent
that the expression "signages" has a different connotation altogether and
does not include road marking with Thermoplastic paint. In support of the
submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has produced before
us the "Code of Practice for Road Marking" issued by the Indian Road
Congress, New Delhi and the "Code of Practice for Road Sign" also
produced by the Indian Road Congress 2012. The two documents have
been placed before us to distinguish road marking from the road signs.
While the latter category falls under "signages", the former would be in a
different category of road marking.
5. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent that road marking with Thermoplastic paint has not been
specifically indicated in the list of specialized items/jobs as contained in
Annexure-1 nor can they be included in serial no. (41) which refers to
"signages". "Signages" in common parlance, in our opinion, are different
and distinct from road marking.
6. That being the position, since road marking with Thermoplastic
paint cannot be regarded as a specialized item/job for civil work, the
condition of a bidder being a class-1 contractor of CPWD would be
applicable. Since the petitioner is admittedly not a class-1 contractor
registered with the CPWD, in our opinion, the bids made by the petitioner
under two NITs have been rightfully rejected.
7. There is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed
without any order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
OCTOBER 01, 2013
kb
