Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Northern Railway And Ors on 17 January, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2014
+ W.P.(C) No. 320/2014
AJAY KUMAR .... Petitioner
versus
NORTHERN RAILWAY AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Saurabh Gautam
For the Respondent : Mr Neeraj Atri and Mr Jairaj Mudgul,
for Northern Railways
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM No. 639/2014
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 320/2014 & CM No. 638/2014
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia sought the
following reliefs:-
"(I) A writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction in the like nature thereby quashing
impugned action(s) of the respondents including
all orally communicated order(s) resulting in
rejection of lowest bid of petitioner vis-a-vis
tender no. 232-Elect/EMU/WC-27/12-13 for the
work of: fabrication, supply & fitment (Provision)
of stainless steel items in 02 nos. EMU Rakes
consisting of 24 coaches;
(II) A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction in the like nature commanding the
respondents to hold that the petitioner fulfils the
eligibility criteria and to consequently direct the
respondent to take necessary steps for awarding
the contract to the petitioner.
(III) Grant/pass an ad interim ex-party direction in
terms prayer (I) and (II) by refraining respondent
no. 3 from allotting the contract of fabrication,
supply & fitment (Provisions) of stainless steel
items, without taking into consideration the bid of
the petitioner vis-a-vis tender no. 232-
Elect/EMU/WC-27/12-13 for the work of:
Fabrication, supply & fitment (Provision) of
Stainless Steel items in 02 nos. EMU Rakes
consisting of 24 coaches"
2. By virtue of the Notice Inviting Tender (Case 232-Elect/EMU/WC-
27/12-13), tenders were invited for the fabrication, supply & fitment
(Provision) of stainless steel items in 02 EMU Rakes consisting of 24
coaches. The last date of collecting the documents was 24.10.2013. The
last date of submission of the bids was 25.10.2013 upto 12.00 hours and
the tender opening date was 25.10.2013 itself at 12.15 hours. The
approximate value of the work as estimated in the NIT was `
1,85,41,796/-. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted its bid as
per the schedule and the bids were opened on 25.10.2013 at 12.15 hours.
The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the
bids were opened the petitioner's bid was the lowest yet the work was not
awarded to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that the petitioner's bid could not be accepted in
view of the fact that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria set
out in clauses 4.0 and 4.1 read with clause 5.0 of Part II of the tender
documents. Clauses 4.0, 4.1 and 5.0 are set out herein below:-
"4.0 Eligibility criteria / Credentials of the
Tenderer costing more than ` 50 lakhs
4.1 The firm should have physically completed
in last three financial years (i.e. current
financial year and three previous financial
years) at least one similar single work for a
minimum value of 35% of the advertised
tender value. The total value of similar
nature of work completed during the
qualifying period and not the payments
received within qualifying period alone,
shall be considered.
5.0 Similar nature of work
Manufacturer / supplier of Stainless steel
panels OR carried out the work of SS
fabricated items for EMU / DMU / DMRC /
locomotives / wagons & production unit
coaches such as RCF/ICF etc."
4. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that
the certificate submitted by the petitioner indicating the petitioner's
purported eligibility did not fulfil the criteria mentioned in the above
clauses. Specifically, it was pointed out that the certificate, a copy of
which is at page 46 of the paper book related only to provision of
stainless steel railing on Foot Over Brides, stainless steel benches on
platforms and stainless steel cladding on columns of Main Concourse
Hall and Ceremonial Hall at the New Delhi Station. This kind of work,
according to the learned counsel for the respondent, did not fall within the
eligibility criteria set out in the above mentioned clauses.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the work done
for which the certificate at page 46 had been produced was of a similar
nature of work as required under the said eligibility conditions. However,
when we put it to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he
fulfilled the criteria in clause 5.0 referred to above, the learned counsel
submitted that he had not produced any certificate indicating that the
petitioner was a manufacturer / supplier of stainless steel panels. He
insisted that the work done by the petitioner would fall within the latter
part of clause 5.0. However, he was unable to show as to whether the
petitioner had at all carried out any work of stainless steel fabricated
items for EMU/DMU/DMRC/locomotives/wagons. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that clause 5.0 ends with the abbreviation
"etc" and, therefore, any work of a similar nature could be included and
that the works done by the petitioner were of a similar nature. We do not
agree with this submission. The expression "etc", at the end of clause 5.0
is to be read as a part of the phrase "& production Unit Coaches such as
RCF/ICF etc". The expression "etc" would apply only to production Unit
Coaches. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no
work with regard to production Unit Coaches has been done by the
petitioner. Therefore, this argument which has been advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the interpretation of "etc" cannot be
accepted. We also are of the view that clause 5.0 has to be read into
clause 4.1 which specifically deals with the expression "similar nature of
work". Clause 5.0 prescribes the extent of similar nature of work.
Unfortunately for the petitioner, he does not fall within the precincts of
the definition of similar nature of work as given in clause 5.0.
6. Consequently, the petition has no merit. The same is dismissed but
with no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 17, 2014
SU
