Compliance with tender eligibility criteria and submission requirements is crucial for the acceptance of a bid.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Shobhit Mishra. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 along with Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner participated in a tender being Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 for assembling, establishing, procuring technology, designing, developing, producing, embossing, affixing and fitting of High Security Registration Plates ('HSRP', for short). The bid of the petitioner came to be rejected at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation on account of not meeting the eligibility criteria. The reasons, however, were not disclosed, as to why the bid was rejected.

3. Subsequent to the order dated 17.02.2022, Mr. Shrivastava has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 indicating the reasons for which bid of the petitioner came to be rejected.

4. It is stated that because of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4 read with Clause 4.3.1 (xi), Clause 1.2.3 (PAN and ITR not submitted), Clause 4.3.1 (xxiv) (Certificate of Laser Printing not submitted), 6.8 (undertaking not submitted) of the Instructions to Bidders (for short, ITB) and Annexure (xix) (undertaking not submitted). It is also pointed out that bid document fee was not paid as per the tender requirement.

5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 1.1.4 and to demonstrate that the petitioner has the requisite qualification, he has drawn our attention to pages 36, 37 & 38 of the writ petition and accordingly, submits that the ground for rejection on account of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4 is wholly misconceived. He submits that all that is required under clause 1.1.4 is that it must be executing HSRP for at least 5 whole States/Union Territories in India for a minimum period of one year, in last five financial years, at least in one make of vehicle. With regard to non-furnishing of Income Tax Return and PAN Card, he has submitted that the same were duly uploaded. With regard to Clause 4.3.1 (xi), he submits that since the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria in terms of Clause 1.1.4, necessarily, there is compliance of the clause and the ground for rejection on account of non-conforming to Clause 4.3.1(x) does not stand. With regard to alleged non-compliance of Clause 4.3.1 (xxiv) for non-furnishing of certificate of Laser Printing, it is submitted by him that such a certificate is not required as the machine offered by the petitioner itself has in-built laser printing mechanism and such a clause is relevant only for those tenderers, whose machine does not have in-built laser printing mechanism. With regard to Annexure (xix), he submits that there is no requirement of submitting the same at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation in terms of Clause 4.3.1. It is also contended that certificate in terms of Clause 6.8, which provides that the project will be implemented by the contractor himself, is also not required to be submitted in terms of 4.3.1. Mr. Bharat submits that the bid of the petitioner is less than the bid of the respondent No. 4 and if the respondent No. 4 is awarded the contract instead of the petitioner, the people of the State will have to bear extra burden. In substance, Mr. Bharat submits that technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on irrelevant and extraneous grounds in order to sub-serve the interest of blue-eyed tenderer, namely, respondent No. 4 and therefore, an interim order is called for restraining the respondent/State authorities from proceeding with the tender process.

6. Mr. Shrivastava submits that the documents on which Mr. Bharat has placed reliance to contend that the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria as laid down Clause 1.1.4, demo