e>K. Ravichandrabaabu#T. Krishnavalli#202TN1000Judgment/OrderCTC#MANUK. Ravichandrabaabu,MADRAS2018-8-317163 -->


True Court CopyTM


W.A.(MD) No. 977 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No. 6578 of 2018

Decided On: 27.07.2018

Appellants: The Chairman, V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust and Ors.
Respondent: M. Sindhu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ravichandrabaabu and T. Krishnavalli


K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P(MD) No. 14375 of 2018 dated 17.07.2018.

2. The appellants herein are the respondents before the Writ Court. The respondent herein, as the writ petitioner, challenged Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the Tender Notice dated 27.06.2018 on the file of the second respondent. Consequently, the writ petitioner sought for a direction to the first respondent to conduct the tender in a fair manner by amending Clauses 3 and 4 suitably in consonance with the Tender Transparency Act.

3. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition in part and quashed the Clause No. 4 of the Tender Notification alone. Thus, the present writ appeal is filed by the aggrieved respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed before the Writ Court are called as such here in this writ appeal.

4. The brief facts and circumstances, which culminated into filing of this writ appeal, are as follows:-

a) The Union of India proposed to take development activities to deepen the Harbour Basin and the approach channel to handle Draught Vessels to the level of 15.2 meters at the first respondent Port. The project is for the purpose of construction of break water rubble protection bund and strengthening of berth and widening of the Port entrance channel and deepening of entrance channel and harbour basin. The initial work of construction of rubble protection bund for dumping of dredged materials of capital dredging at South of South break water in the first respondent Port was estimated at the cost of Rs. 136.19 Crores. Initially a tender was floated on 28.04.2018. There was a meeting of the bidders, called pre-bid meeting. A technical objection was raised that the "similar work" definition in the Tender Notice was meaningless and the road work cannot be compared with the nature of work in the proposed tender dated 28.04.2018. After considering the objection from participants, the respondent Trust thought fit that it cannot proceed with the tender floated on 28.04.2018 and thus, cancelled the same, by proceedings dated 24.05.2018. The respondents decided to appoint an Expert Body consisting of Professors, who have highest reputation and rich experience in the field of Ocean Engineering to give advice in this matter to take a decision pertaining to the qualification and experience in the project of construction of rubble protection bund. Accordingly, the Expert Body was constituted, which in turn gave a report that an experience in construction of road work cannot be treated with the experience of rubble protection bund for capital dredging. The Expert Body further concluded that the road construction, maintenance of bund work cannot be considered as eligible qualification for the proposed work of rubble protection bund for capital dredging at the cost of Rs. 136.18 Crores. Hence, a fresh notification was issued on 27.06.2018 also by explaining as to what is "similar work' meant under Clause 3(a) of the Tender Notification. The said notification was put to challenge by the writ petitioner only by questioning Clause-3 and Clause-4 therein. While Clause-3 deals with minimum qualifying criteria, wherein similar work was defined as Construction of breakwater in any ports/harbour in India/Abroad using armor stones, tetrapods, accropodes etc, Clause - 4 s........