High Court of Meghalaya
Pragati Engineers vs . Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.44/2023 with
MC (WA) No.50/2023
Date of Order: 22.02.2024
Pragati Engineers Vs. Union of India & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Paul, Sr.Adv with
Mr. S. Chanda, Adv
For the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT:
(Made by Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP (C) No.304
of 2023, by which it was held that the tender conditions or the process
thereof cannot be said to be infirm, thereby, the plea of the Writ
Petitioner / Company for interfering with the tender was negative.
2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner / Company that it is in the
business of supplying various electrical equipment and lightning
protection to the Government instrumentalities for the last 22 years,
besides having 40 years of experience in the field. It is further case of the
Writ Petitioner that the authorization letter dated 08.07.2023, issued in
favour of the Writ Petitioner by M/s. JMV LPS Ltd to supply and bid for
lightning conductor system is valid till 02.07.2024 and the Writ
Petitioner was not aware of cancellation of the authorization letter by
M/s. JMV LPS Ltd, as there was no communication in that regard and
therefore, it cannot be said that the authorization letter submitted by the
Writ Petitioner is fake. It is also the case of the Writ Petitioner that
without any notice or intimation, the authorization given to the Company
was cancelled on 01.08.2023, by an email dated 11.08.2023, which reads
as follows:
"This is to inform that our firm M/s JMV LPS
Limited has cancelled the authorization of M/s Pragati
Engineers immediately after issuing as our working terms
were not matching with them. Also M/s Pragati Engineers
was clearly informed not to place authorization of M/s JMV
LPS Limited against GeM Bid No GEM/2023/B/3622434
dated 27/06/2023 uploaded by Assam Rifles for installation
of the product in the location of Assam Rifles in North East.
With this we hereby confirm that we do not authorize M/s
Pragati Engineers for the said tender."
3. The case put forth by the Writ Petitioner is that the
Company was the successful bidder and it is not known as to who had
signed the letter of cancellation of authorization. Moreover, the
cancellation of authorization, which was brought to the notice of the
Writ Petitioner only after filing of the writ petition cannot weigh much
importance, as the Director Technical had signed the authorization letter
dated 08.07.2023. Apart from the above, the details, such as name of
authorized signatory, his/her designation, email address and the
telephone number must reflect in the cancellation letter, which is absent
in the communication dated 01.08.2023.
4. At this juncture, besides raising various averments, learned
DSIG, representing the respondents, inter alia, contended that the tender
has been awarded to a third party, namely, M/s Assam Supply Syndicate
and has carried out 40 per cent of the work and at this distant point of
time, the cancellation will definitely affect the entire process and the
work for which the tender was issued will come to a standstill.
5. Learned DSGI further contended that the Company, which
has been awarded with the tender has not been made as a Party and on
that score, the Writ Appeal has got to be rejected. It is also contended
that the learned Single Judge had elaborately discussed the two grounds
on which the Writ Petitioner was found unfit and disqualified to
participate in the bid in Paragraph No.8 of the order.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents on record.
7. The main case of the Writ Petitioner / Company is that they
are the successful bidder and the unilateral cancellation of authorization
letter without any intimation cannot disentitle the Writ Petition to
participate in the tender. In the present Writ Appeal, we are not inclined
to go into the factual aspects of the matter, which was canvassed by
either parties. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the tender has been
awarded to a third party, viz., M/s Assam Supply Syndicate and that the
said Company has also not been made as a Party to the lis before this
Court. At this point of time, this Court can, at the most, give liberty to
the Writ Petitioner to claim compensation, if so advised, in case of any
violation in respect of award of tender to the third party, instead of
interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge or the tender
process, for the reason that as stated supra, the tender has been awarded
to another Company, pursuant to which, the Company has also carried
out 40 per cent of the work.
8. In the result, while declining to grant the relief as sought for
by the Appellant herein / Writ Petitioner, W.A.No.44 of 2023 stands
dismissed. MC (WA) No.50 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
22.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"
