Narendra Sharma Construction ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14097 MP

                                                    1
                 IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                                                 &
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                        ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                      WRIT PETITION No. 21846 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               NARENDRA SHARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
               JAIPUR AND ENVIRAD PROJECTS PVT. LTD. KANPUR
               JOINT VENTURE THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
               REPRESENTATIVE SHRI DEENDAYAL SHARMA S/O
               SHRI RAMNIWAS SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
               OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR R/O B- 790 SUMER NAGAR
               MANSAROVAR JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

               AND
               1.          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                           PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                           PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, VALLABH
                           BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH JAL
                           NIGAM, 8 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL, MADHYA
                           PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI ANKUR MODY- ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
               STATE)

                           This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Rohit Arya
               passed the following:
                                                     ORDER

Signature Not VerifiedPetitioner was one of the tenderers for "Lump-sum contract for Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Testing, Commissioning, Trial Run Signing time: 28-08-2023 04:37:20 PM

and Operation & Maintenance for 10 years of Ghategaon-Bhitarwar, Distt. Gwalior & Morena Multi- Village Drinking Water Supply Schemes in Single Package on Turn-Key Job Basis" The Tender Committee consisting of experts has examined technical bid of each of the tenderers and thereafter has issued a list of eligible and not eligible tenderers/bidders. Petitioner's name appears at serial number 22 as not eligible. The technical flaws found in the tender document of the petitioner were catalogued according to the petitioner in Annexure P/6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that reply thereto was submitted, but there was no final communication rendering the petitioner

ineligible except Annexure P/1. A representation has also been filed in that behalf, but the same remains unattended. Hence he has approached this Court seeking indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Mody, learned Additional Advocate General on advance notice, has raised a preliminary objection as against the maintainability of writ petition primarily on the ground that regard being had to the nature and period of contract and detailed analysis done by the experts committee while assessing technical bid of each of the bidders, if petitioner is declared ineligible on his technical bid, no exception thereto can be taken, as entire gamut of the matter was in the domain of scrutiny of technical bid by the experts committee. It is not the case of ignorance or avoidance of any provision of statutory contract of which compliance is sought for. Under such circumstances, this Court may not entertain this petition as the same shall tantamount to substitution of this Court's view for that of experts recommendation which is not permissible in terms of Signature Not Verified catena of judgments given by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Shri Mody also submits Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 28-08-2023 04:37:20 PM that in case petitioner has filed representation, as alleged, as Annexure P/5 and

is not addressed, the petitioner may approach the authority and the same shall be duly responded.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substantial force in the submission advanced by Shri Mody in the context of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We appreciate his last contention in the context of representation. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the hope and trust that competent authority shall be well advised to advert to his representation, Annexure P/5, if not already decided and suitable reply be given to the petitioner within a reasonable time.

                  (ROHIT ARYA)                                     (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                     JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
               ms/-




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 28-08-2023
04:37:20 PM