Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7512 of 2018 Petitioner :- Overseas Infrastructure Alliance(India) Private Limited Respondent :- Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahmoob Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents.
The writ petition challenges the amendments/corrigendum made/issued dated 15.2.2018 and 10.2.2018, whereby the second respondent, according to the petitioners, changed the eligibility criteria and ousted the petitioners from participating in the tender process. The tenders were invited for the work of providing electricity connection to all households in rural areas and poor households in urban areas in 21 districts under the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners do not have any experience of having done such work in India or taken any such contract in India so far. In this backdrop, we have examined the original clause and the amended clauses in the tender documents dated 15.1.2018. The amendments were made on 3.2.2018 and 10.2.2018. The original clause 1.01.2 in the tender documents reads thus:
“1.01.2 Work experiences of the bidder as per above shall be considered only if the works have been executed under Govt./semi- Govt./autonomous body of Central/State Govt./Electricity Power Utility/Power Deptt. in India. Experience of indian company in foreign country will be considered.”
After the first corrigendum dated 3.2.2018, the said clause reads thus:
“Work Experiences of the bidder as per above shall be considered only if the works have been executed under Govt./semi- Govt./autonomous body of Central/State Govt./Private Sector/Electricity Power utility/Power Plan/Power Transmission Line/Power Deptt. in india only. Experience of indian company in foreign country is accepted.”
And after the second corrigendum dated 10.2.2018, the said clause reads thus:
“Work experiences of the bidder as per above shall be considered only if the works have been executed under Govt./semi- Govt./autonomous body of Central/State Govt./Electricity Power Utility/Power Deptt./listed companies in Private Sector in India only.”
From a plain reading of all three clauses, i.e. the original and the amended clauses, it is clear to us that the basic requirement for a contractor to participate in the tender process was that he should have experience of working under Govt./semi- Govt./autonomous body of Central/State Govt./Electricity Power Utility/Power Deptt. in India. This has not been changed even after issuing the corrigendum dated 3.2.2018 and 10.2.2018. Undoubtedly, the original clause and the clause after amendment dated 3.2.2018 state that the experience of Indian Company in foreign country is either considered or accepted, but from plain reading of three clauses, it is clear, as stated earlier, that under any circumstances, the Company should have experience of working in India. The petitioners, therefore, in our opinion, do not fall in the category, since it is not in dispute that they do not have any experience of working in India.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the challenge raised in the writ petition. The petition, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 RK (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)