Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 95
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
R.D. Construction - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 4045 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prateek Sharma.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vikram Sharma Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Mr. Sharad Mishra.
Point of law: When the technical bid is opened, it is the right of the rival bidders to see whether the documents attached by a bidder meet technical requirements or not and that the same can only be done if the documents attached to bid are shown to the other side.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Petitioner, which is a partnership firm, has prayed for setting aside order whereby technical bid of petitioner was held to be nonresponsive, opening of financial bid as well as all further proceedings on basis of opening of financial bid - Prayer is also made to direct respondents to open financial bid of petitioner declaring him eligible in technical bid - Petitioner was informed that its technical bid was rejected, recited two grounds for such rejection: (i) petitioner failed to furnish experience certificate of having successfully completed laboratory designing and laboratory construction of minimum 30,000 sq.ft of lab work as mandated in point No. 2 of eligibility criteria of NIT, and (ii) proforma for integrity pact submitted by petitioner along with technical bid was blank - Whether technical bid could have been rejected because of blank submission of integrity pact.
Finding of the court:
Technical bid of petitioner was rightly rejected for failure to furnish experience certificate - Estimated cost of work of subject NIT is Rs.13,17,00,000/- and aforesaid qualification criteria would come into play - Why respondent No.6 had submitted Income Tax Return for four years is not known - Respondent as well as tender committee overlooked aforesaid requirement and in absence of Income Tax Return for five years, it could not have been concluded that tender of respondent No.6 is valid in all respects - In substance, tender of respondent No.6 is also an invalid one and work order could not have been awarded to respondent No.6 - Court will not hazard a guess as to whether requirement of submission of Income Tax Return for five years, a material clause regarding eligibility criteria, was inadvertently overlooked or such a requirement was ignored in order to grant contract in favour of respondent No.6.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as well as Mr. Sharda Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, has prayed for setting aside (i) the order dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P/2) whereby the technical bid of the petitioner was held to be non-responsive, (ii) opening of the financial bid on 16.09.2021 as well as (iii) all further proceedings on the basis of opening of the financial bid. Prayer is also made to direct the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner declaring him eligible in the technical bid.
3. This Court, by order dated 08.10.2021 had issued an order of status quo as it existed on that date in respect of the subject tender process till the next date of hearing which was fixed on 28.10.2021. The said interim order is subsisting as on date as the same has been extended from time to time.
4. The Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, after obtaining sanction of the President of India, had issued an order dated 05.07.2018 sanctioning establishment of a Biotechnology Park in the State of Chhattisgarh with the object of providing facilities for interface of Research Institute with Industry for better utilization of technology and available resources. The Chhattisgarh Biotech Society Raipur was chosen as the implementing institute and the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur (for short, the University), respondent No. 3, was entrusted with the task of providing technical support to the proposed Biotech Incubation Center. The Department of Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Biotechnology Development, Government of Chattisgarh issued an order on 30.06.2020 by which administrative approval of Rs.13,49,84,000/- was sanctioned for construction of a Biotechnology Incubation Center. It was consequent upon grant of such administrative approval and sanction, the University issued a notice inviting tender (for short, NIT), inviting submission of online bids till 20.02.2021.
5. Four firms including the petitioner submitted their bids and on evaluation, the technical bid of all the four firms was rejected, and thereafter, the instant NIT dated 10.03.2021 was issued. The last date for online submission of the tender and the last date for submitting the same physically was fixed on 20.03.2021 and 22.03.2021, respectively. The technical bid was scheduled to be opened at 4:00 pm on 22.03.2021.
6. The letter dated 03.08.2021, whereby the petitioner was informed that its technical bid was rejected, recited two grounds for such rejection: (i) the petitioner failed to furnish the experience certificate of having successfully completed laboratory designing and laboratory construction of minimum 30,000 sq.ft of lab work as mandated in point No. 2 of the eligibility criteria of the NIT, and (ii) the proforma for integrity pact submitted by the petitioner along with the technical bid was blank.
7. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the reply of respondents No. 3 to 5 would go to show that while the technical bid submitted by the respondent No. 6 was found to be in order, the tenders submitted by the other three firms including the petitioner were not found to be technically responsive and yet, vide letter dated 20.07.2021, the petitioner was asked to extend the validity period of the bid till 24.07.2021, failing which it was indicated that the tender of the petitioner will not be considered. It is submitted that when the tenders were already opened and the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be non-responsive, whic
