& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Gas Pipeline to North HC vacates its stay on re-tender

Staff Correspondent
A High Court (HQ division bench yesterday vacated its previous stay order on re-tender of construction of gas pipelines in North Bengal.
The rule came at a time when Gas Transmission Company Limited (GTCL), a company of Petrobangla that oversees the gas pipeline projects, had selected a bidder thrice for me contract.
Earlier on October 25, the High Court bench of Justice Joynul Abedin and Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury stayed the re-tender for three months after the primarily selected responsive bidder had filed a writ petition challenging the retender by GTCL
The bench, then, also served a rule on the authorities concerned to show cause in three weeks as to why the re-tender should not be declared illegal.
Attorney General AF Hassan Ariff yesterday moved a petition for vacating the slay order on the rc-tender. Barrister Abdus Samad, counsel for the bidder, The Pipeline Engineers & Associates Ltd (TPEAL), opposed the move, saying it would mean a setback in the significant project.
The bench vacated the stay but said the rule would remain valid.
The Nalka (in SirajganjJ-Bogra Gas Pipeline Project has been split into two groups--Naika-Chandaikona pipeline as group A and Chandaikona-Bogra pipeline as group B.
When the GTCL floated tender for 6 kilometre (km) 30 inches pipeline from Nalka to Hatikumrul and 18km 20 inches pipeline from Hatikumrul to Chandaikona, five companies bld for the work worthTk 14.33 lakh.
The tender evaluation committee (TEC) identified four bidders TPEAL, Shamsuddin Mia & Associates Ltd (SMAL), Pipeliners Limited (PL) and Dacca Gas Service Ltd (DGSL)as substantially responsive and Gasmin Limited as non-responsive.
Finally, TEC found only TPEAL's proposal acceptable. Evaluating the recommendation; rheH£L board on September 19 unanimously decided that TPEAL had submitted the lowest tender, which Is 4.45 percent lower than the GTCL approved estimated cost for the work.
Asked by the GTCL, TPEAL fur-nished its confirmation on September 22 and the GTCL found it too acceptable.
But when the proposal to award TPEAL the contract was placed before a GTCL board on September 28, the board instructed the managing director to ask SMAL PL and DGSL to submit their tenders again by Octobers for further evaluation.
After the three bidders submitted those, die TEC found them non-compliant and identified TPEAL for the third time as the only acceptable lowest bidder.
But the GTCL board on October 11 yet again decided to invite the companies to re-tender.