LexM/S. SHAPERS CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. AND ANR. versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MIS. SHAPERS CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. AND ANR.
B
v.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Tender Form-Condition enVisaging completion of particular type of
work on the date of application-Party had done major part of such work but
not completed on the date of application-Hence tender form refused-Party
C filing a writ petition and High Court ordering issue of tender form-On appeal
held since on the date of application admittedly such work was not completed,
the pre-condition is not satisfied-Hence the High Court was right in finally
dismissing the writ petition.
New Horiwns Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1995] 1 SCC 478,
D distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 181~1-22 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
E
High Court in W.P. No. 2164/96 and L.PA. No. 138of1996.
G.C. Gupta and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
The petitioners have filed these special leave petitions against the
order of the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur made
on August 14, 1996 in LPA No. 138/96. The learned single Judge as well
as the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions in which the petitioners
had sought direction to the respondents to give the tender form on the
G ground that they had satisfied Condition No. 2 of the Tender Conditions.
Pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, the petitioner
submitted their tender forms. But, at the final hearing, the writ petitions
came to be dismissed. Thus, these special leave petitions.
It is contended for the petitioners that they have past experience in
H execution of the national highway. They have two contracts of more than
424
SHAPERS CON1N. (P) LTD. v. AIRPORT AUUIORITY OF INDIA
425
required amount specified in the tender conditions, 42% of Rs. 4 crores A
and Rs. 6 crores respectively. The certificates issued by the competent
engineers, namely Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer
would show that the petitioners have been satisfactorily performing their
duties in execution of the work. The petitioners, after securing the con-
tracts, have executed major part of the work within the scheduled time
granted under. the contracts. Therefore, the failure to give tender form at B
the inception and consideration thereof after the interim direction is
violative of their fundamental right to compete in the tender for the further
contract. The question is : whether the view taken by the High Court is
wrong in law? Tender Condition No. 2 envisages as under:
"The tenderer who wish to apply shall have satisfactorily completed c
at least two runway/ National highway, preferably rigid pavement
works involving considerable earth filling each of value Rs. 400
lakhs or one work of Rs. 600 Ic.khs during the last five years and
have annual turn over of Rs. 500 lakhs in each (1992-93, 1993-94 D
& 1994-95) and should possess computerised hot mix plant and
concrete batching plant for executing asphaltic and rigid pavement
works."
A reading of this condition would clearly indicate that the tenderers
who wish to apply shall have satisfactorily completed at least two run-
E
way/National highway, preferably rigid pavement works involving consider-
able earth filling, each valuing Rs. 400 lakhs and one work of Rs. 600 lakhs
during the last five years and have annual turn over of Rs. 500 lakhs in each
of the last three years {1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95). He should possess
computerised hot mix plant and concrete batching plant for executing F
asphaltic and rigid pavement works.
It is true, as contended by the petitioners, that the Tender Condition
would indicate that they had completed at least two runway/National
highway, preferably rigid pavement works. He contends that the comple-
tion of the work is different from tendering the contracts for execution of G
the work. They had two contracts as envisaged thereunder; though they
had not totally completed the same, major part of the work had been
completed. Therefore, they have fulfilled the conditions prescribed there-
under. The petitioners, thereby, could not be denied of their right to
compete in, apply for and be considered for assignment of the work under H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
the tenders now in dispute. We find no force in the contExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.