The Bombay High Court has set aside a Maharashtra government's work order awarding contract to a private company to install and maintain audio-visual systems at the state Legistative Assembly, Council and central halls.
Justice S C Dharmadhikari and S C Gupte observed in a recent judgement that the decision of the state government and the Public Works Department in awarding contract to M/s Ram Sangam Infotech Pvt Ltd was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notified earlier.
"When the larger public interest is affected adversely, then this court can, in its writ jurisdiction, interfere with the decision of the state," said the bench while quashing the government's contract and terming it as "vitiated".
Also Read
However, the court stayed its order for two weeks to enable the city-based respondent company to file an appeal in a higher or appellate court.
The Judges said they are interfering in this case simply because the respondent 1 and 2 (state government and PWD) have argued that the terms and conditions of the tender have been notified for the benefit of all bidders. "However, having said this, they have made a marked departure therefrom without producing any material justifying such deviation."
"We have found that the work experience is a vital and important eligibility criteria. That could not have been compromised or given up by the state in the manner done. We find the state itself and particularly PWD are not serious in adhering to the terms and conditions of the tender," the bench said while hearing a petition filed by Hitech Audio Systems.
The judges further said "given the nature of the work and maintenance that is required, the state ought to choose the best and the most experienced in the field. Once the tender process does not meet the requirements of fairness and reasonableness, then there is no alternative for this court but to interfere."
The bench also held that the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution (which deals with equality to all persons) has not been adhered to by the state government.
The petitioner had alleged that password protection had been given to the respondent company who bagged the contract and this was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioner company, which did not bag the contract,
contended that one of the conditions of the tender required that a bidder should have work experience of installing such an audio-visual system in a prestigious government building valued at not less than Rs 111 lakhs.
It was argued that the tender violated the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution (equality) and the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission. There was no necessity to keep any secrecy, for whatever is uploaded on the website of the PWD for this e-tender ought to be in public domain. None of the uploaded bids or tenders should be password protected.
In the present case, password protection given to respondent 3 violates mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, the petitioner further submitted.
Moreover, the petitioner contended that PWD and particularly its Executive Engineer, in taking the decision, has compromised with the terms and conditions of the tender. "They have been relaxed in order to favour the third respondent (Ram Sangam Infotech Pvt Ltd)."
The petitioner argued that the respondent company does not have the requisite experience to maintain such type of equipment, including digital audio conference system with voting camera control and language interpretation system and hence it did not meet the eligibility criteria to bid for the contract.
Despite this, PWD certified that the respondent company had qualified the conditions of the tender and accordingly it bagged the contract, said the petitioner.
