Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 764 - SC - Indian LawsNotice inviting tenders (NIT) - challenge to the eligibility of respondent no 2 and allotment of the project work - (1) that respondent No.2 had not filed the requisite certified balance-sheets for five years immediately preceding the issue of tender notice, (2) that respondent No.2 did not have the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply scheme of the required value. HELD THAT:- No legal flaw in the finding or the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court. It is true that the date of submission of tender was initially fixed but the same was extended. That being so, 5 years immediately preceding the issue of the tender notice would have included the year 2010- 2011 also for which financial year, audit of the company’s books, accounts and documents had not been completed. Such being the case, respondent No.2 could not possibly comply with the requirement of the tender notice or produce certified copy of the audited balance-sheet for the said year. All that it could possibly do was to obtain a certificate based on the relevant books, registers, records accounts etc., of the company, which certificate was indeed produced by the said respondent. The High Court has rightly observed that the appellant had not disputed the correctness of the turnover certified by the Chartered Accountant for the year 2010-2011 nor was it disputed that the same satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. therefore, fail and is accordingly rejected. The High Court has, while examining the question of eligibility of respondent No.2 by reference to the execution of the single integrated water supply scheme, recorded a finding that the nature of the work executed by respondent No.2 for Upleta satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. That finding, in our view, is in no way irrational or absurd. We say so because the certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 sufficiently demonstrates that respondent No.2 had designed, and executed an integrated water supply scheme for Upleta which included raw water transmission from intake wells and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying of pipelines, construction of E.S.R.s, Sumps, Pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery. In the absence of any mala fide or arbitrariness in the process of evaluation of bids and the determination of the eligibility of the bidders, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for interference of this Court. This appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed with cost assessed at ₹ 25,000/- .
|