ISOLUX- SOMA -OMAXE CONSORTIUM v. M-S. MADHUCON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 315

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, A.K. GANGULY

Case summary

ISOLUX- SOMA -OMAXE CONSORTIUM v. M-S. MADHUCON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2009) 5 S. C. R. 315 ~{ ISOLUX- SOMA- OMAXE CONSORTIUM v. M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1826 of 2009) j MARCH 24, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ. ] Tender bid - Invitation for tender - Two stages of evaluation - Short-listing of six bidders including writ petitioners in terms with the clause - For transparency in the process of evaluation, Central Government applying s. 33 of the Act to tender process - Re-evaluation of list and shortlisting of six bidders - However, writ petitioners not eligible to ->participate in the second stage of bid process - Challenge to - Disposal of writ petition - On appeal, held: By mere inclusion in the list of short-listed bidders, bidders only get the right to be considered in respect of its financial and technical bids - No prejudiced would be caused to any parties by increasing the number - NHAI would select the best bidder . allegedly kept out of consideration thereby making them ineligible.

It is also submitted that two of the bidders (Maytas Infra Limited Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited-China Railway 18 Bureau Corporation Limited and Madhucon Projects Limited-Galfar Engineering and contracting S. A. O. G. sutanate of oman-Wade Adams (Middle east) Limited Dubai, UAE-SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited) do not have clean records and therefore their bids ought not to have been accepted when the stress is on transparency. It is pointed out that if these two are to be kept out of consideration, the appellants will have to be included amongst the six short-listed " bidders. The learned counsel for the NHAI submitted that in terms of clause 3. 5. 2 the choice has to be restricted to maximum six and cannot go beyond it. It is, however, stated that action has been taken against one of the short-listed bidders, i. e. Madhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel appearing for the said party stated that the action initiated is the su.

bject matter of challenge before the Delhi High court. We find that at the stage of short-listing the evaluation is on the basis of points score basis on financial stability and technical capabilities. In the peculiar facts of the case let all the eight bidders be short-listed, i. e. ... 1. Maytas Infra Limited Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited China Railway 18 Bureau Corporation Limited. 2. Hindustan Construction company Limited-John Laing Investments Limited. 3. Cintra Concessions De ... lnfraestructuas De Transporte, S. A. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Ltd. "'- 4. Larsen Toubro Limited B. Seenaiah &Company Limited. 5. GVK Power and infrastructure Limited Thiess Leighton India-Oriental Structural Engineers India Private Limited. 6. lsolux Corsan Concession-Soma Enterprise Ltd. - Omaxe Infrastructures and Constructions Private Ltd. 7. GMR Infrastructure Limited-Punj Lloyd Limited 8. Madhuchon Projects Limited-Galfar Engineering and .. contracting S. A. O. G.

sultanate of oman-Wade Adams (Middle East) Limited Dubai, UAE-SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited. By increasing the number to eight practically no prejudice will be caused to any parties. It is for the NHAI to select the best bidder for undertaking the project which is of great importance. It is on record that expansion of the number was one of the recommendations of the Committee formed by the Government. ~ We are told that clause 3. 5. 2 is not insisted upon in . ;,. subsequent tenders, thereby making it an open field. By mere inclusion in the list of short-listed bidders. the bidders only get the right to be considered in respect of its financial and technical bids. Since the project is of some urgency it would J be appropriate to make the number of the short-listed bidders eight. Needless to say that if any circumstance regarding the credibility of any of the bidders has come to the notice of the NHAI it is for it to take such action.

Further if the aggrieved bidder has any grievance it can be agitated before an appropriate Forum. In that regard we express no opinion. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. ~ In view of the aforesaid directions it is not necessary to go into the question as to the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the Act. -- N. J. Appeal disposed of.