Bench reprimands state on composite tenders

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 20

Haryana’s decision to invite composite tenders for civil and electrical works, with the condition that only civil contractors are eligible to apply, has failed to find favour with the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Any action of the state which tends to exclude a particular class of contractors from entering a fair competition cannot be upheld and has to be adjudged as void, a Division Bench of the High Court has ruled.

The ruling by a Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition filed by Electrical Contractors Welfare Association against Haryana and other respondents.

It had challenged composite tender invited by the respondents for civil and electrical works for construction of a war memorial in Ambala Cantonment. The Bench was told that the total contract was for Rs 31.46 crore, of which the cost for electrical component was projected at Rs 16.80 crore.

The petitioners claimed that composite tender was issued after relaxation of a clause in the PWD Code by the Haryana Government, vide resolution February 16.

They claimed that it was done at the behest of Minister for Health, Sports and Youth Affairs, who had passed an order for calling a complete composite tender, and as such, his action was tainted by mala fides.

“Any decision of the state inviting composite tenders for civil and electrical works containing a condition that only civil contractors will be eligible to apply and entitled to enter into joint venture with registered electrical contractors or to appoint them as sub-contractors for electrical part of tender is not liable to be sustained,” asserted the Bench.

The Bench noted that state action resulting in unequal and discriminatory treatment would be violative of the doctrine of level playing field embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on with any occupation, trade or business.

The Bench added that composite tender conferring discretion upon civil contractors to choose electrical contractors for a joint venture or appoint them as sub-contractors for electrical work would not only be unjust, arbitrary and unfair, but would also tend to create a monopoly of civil contractors to the exclusion of electrical contractors.

At the same time, the Bench asserted that the decision was not by way of a general policy and the work contract had already been finalised. Any interference at this stage would hamper the project in terms of time and might result in financial loss to the public exchequer, opposed to public interest, the Bench observed.