Nagpur: While quashing a road construction tender, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ordered a probe into the conduct of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) chief engineer AB Gaikwad for ignoring favouritism in the process.
“The enquiry shall be conducted by an officer not below secretary’s rank in the ministry of transport, national highway division. A report should be submitted in a month,” a division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Avinash Gharote ordered.
The bench also passed several strictures on the conduct of Bajoriya Construction Company Private Limited (BCCPL) partner Sumit Bajoriya terming its “deplorable”. “It requires to be deprecated. It tends to criminality,” the bench stated. Bajoriya and his firm were in limelight in the alleged multi-crore irrigation scam in Jigaon and other projects.
The stern directives came while delivering a verdict in a case filed by RK Chavan Infrastructure which challenged the rejection of its request letter for bagging the contract by PWD executive engineer in Yavatmal. The Pune-based firm also challenged rejection of its experience certificate by Gaikwad that was earlier accepted by MSRDC executive engineer in Pune. The petitioner through counsel MG Bhangde had further challenged rejection of its objection questioning eligibility of Bajoriya’s firm for bagging the tender.
The government had invited tenders for improvement work of Chargaon-Shirpur-Kalmana to Chandrapur district border (Wanoja) road that was worth Rs47.56 crore on June 29, 2009. The petitioner along with a joint venture between BCCPL and Gughane Infrastructure also submitted their respective bids. Chavan’s firm submitted a work experience certificate issued by MSRDC’s executive engineer.
After bids were open, the Bajoriya’s firm took objection over petitioner questioning its eligibility and raising doubts over its experience certificates. However, the tender evaluation committee (TEC) rejected BCCPL’s objections. When the bids were opened on August 1 last year, Bajoriya allegedly created ruckus and walked away with tender documents.
On August 22, petitioner received a PWD letter informing it that its experience letter was cancelled on Gaikwad’s recommendations. Subsequently, the firm’s bid declared as ineligible and tender was awarded to Bajoriya’s firm, which it challenged in HC.
“The entire conspectus of facts smacks not only of malafides, but also of favouritism, indulgence, interference, which compels us to hold that the entire tender process is vitiated. We quash the entire tender process and direct respondents to recommence it, with a word of caution, that no authority, whomsoever, should permit or tolerate any interference from anyone of any nature. The eligibility/qualifying criteria should be scrupulously adhered to, in all aspects,” the judges stated.
Questioning Gaikwad’s conduct, they said he was aware of the petitioner's satisfactory completion of work, still he played into BCCPL’s hands for reasons unsaid.
On Bajoriya’s conduct, the judges said one fails to understand why appropriate proceedings under the IPC weren’t initiated by him. “Failure to do so clearly amounts to a dereliction of duty on PWD’s part, as such activities can’t be permitted to be tolerated. It would not only undermine the entire process, but would also indicate that unscrupulous elements could get away with anything,” they tersely stated.