We have heard companynsel for both sides at length.
Ram Gajadher Nishad v. State of U.P., C.A. 1819/89 Ramana Dayaram Sherry v. The International Airport Authority of India Ors.,
Para V required the intending tenderers to furnish the following information along with the application for issue of blank tender books, namely Audited Balance Sheet Certificate from Chartered Ac companyntant for preceding three years Latest income tax clearance Certificate Copy of the Registration Certificate Annual output of the works of all the above nature at any site accompanied by a certificate from the organisation for whom the tenderer had carried out the works furnishing details such as rate of pouring of companycrete.
N. Bhatt, Rajinder Sachhar, Vineet Kumar, B. Mohan and G. Raghvan for the Respondents.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1989 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
manufacturing of hollow companycrete block, precast companycrete block, etc.,
15 lakhs less than the tender of the peti tioner.
2017 of 1989.
and period of companypletion scheduled envisaged, equipments and their deploy ment i.e., man months etc.
as furnished by each of the applicants.
1027 of 1990.
These tenders were examined by the Chief Engineer as well as an independent firm of Engineering Consultants, namely, Tata Consulting Engineers T.C.E. Both the Chief Engineer as well as T.C.E. recommended acceptance of the tender of C.C. which was the lowest tender in view of the fact that M.C.C. had adequate experience in the companystruction of C.C. works and they were capable of mobilising the work force required for the work.
Only three of them, however, submitted companypleted tender books by February 27, 1989.
It is submit ted that M.C.C. did number companyply with these requirements and hence its application for tender forms should have been rejected at the outset.
Four of the firms were found to be pre qualified by the Chief Engineer and tender books were issued to them.
Parasaran, C.S. Vaidyanatha, S.R. Bhat, S.R. Setia, V. Mohan and Mrs. Sunitha B. Singh for the Petitioner.
1979 3 SCR 1014, referred to.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of a companytract by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. P.C. , an instrumentality of the State of Karnataka, in favour of the Mysore Construction Co. M.C.C. His writ petition and a further writ appeal in the Karnataka High Court having been unsuccessful, he has preferred this Spe cial Leave Petition from the judgment of the High Court in the writ appeal.
