ASI awarded ₹5.6 cr contract in violation of norms: T’gana HC
A single bench of the high court headed by Justice K Laxman Rao, after hearing the arguments on a petition filed by Hyderabad-based photographer D Ravinder Reddy, ruled that the work order issued by the ASI to Giopel Import and Export Private Limited of Gurugram in Haryana, was in violation of the tender process.
Telangana high court on Wednesday set aside a contract worth ₹5.62 crore awarded by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to a Gurugram-based private firm on nomination basis, for digitising around one lakh estampages of inscriptions of ancient monuments, for allegedly flouting tender norms.
A single bench of the high court headed by Justice K Laxman Rao, after hearing the arguments on a petition filed by Hyderabad-based photographer D Ravinder Reddy, ruled that the work order issued by the ASI to Giopel Import and Export Private Limited of Gurugram in Haryana, was in violation of the tender process.
The judge ordered that the work order be awarded to the next eligible candidate in the tender process followed by the ASI for the digitisation of estampages – a process followed in epigraphy to obtain the exact replica of the inscriptions on walls and pillars of ancient monuments on paper.
Senior advocate for the petitioner Prem Kumar Pothina said the ASI, New Delhi, had on October 25, 2021, called for tenders through Government e-Market place (GeM) website for digitisation of official documents/archival material preserved in the office of the director (epigraphy), Archaeological Survey of India, Mysuru. The cost of the work was estimated to be around ₹1.50 crore.
“However, on June 15, 2022, the ASI cancelled the tenders abruptly without any reason. Later, on July 7, the contract for estampages was awarded out of turn to Giopel Import and Export Pvt Ltd without considering the eligibility criteria for an inflated amount of ₹5,61,68,000, which is nearly four times more than the original bid value,” Pothina said.
He argued in the court that the Gurugram-based company, which was awarded the contract, was not at all solvent financially nor was it technically qualified to perform such work. He requested that the court order an inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission into the whole episode.
Additional advocate general T Suryakaran Reddy, who argued on behalf of the ASI, defended the awarding of the contract to the firm which he said “was capable of handling the work”.
After hearing the arguments, the high court judge dismissed the ASI argument and directed that the work order given to the firm be cancelled and given to the next applicant among the eligible.
