Interpretation of tender documents in favor of the bidder in case of ambiguity and the importance of adhering to the standards and norms laid down in the tender documents.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - The writ petition has been filed seeking the following substantive prayer:

a. "Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2 insofar it fails to include the Petitioner in the Envelop Name: Price Bid;

b. Quash and set aside the impugned e-mail communication dated 21.05.2021 issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner.

c. ...

d. Stay further process with respect to Open Tender NIT/Bid Doc. No. EESL/06/2020-21/KUSUM/WPS/1-10 HP/ Off Grid/202101032 dated 14.01.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2;

e. Direct the Respondent to provide reason(s) for rejection of Technical Qualification bid of the Petitioner;

f. Pass any such other order / directions as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

2) The Petitioner is stated to be one of Indias leading solar company with a vision to harness and connect the power of Sun. The Petitioner was established in the year 2011 and is indulged in manufacturing, supplying and exporting the solar systems to both corporate and residential clients.

3) The respondent No. 2 is Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) and is a Super Energy Service Company (ESCO), which enables consumers, industries and governments to effectively manage their energy needs through energy efficient technologies. EESL was founded in 2009, promoted by Ministry of Power, Government of India as a Joint Venture of four reputed public-sector undertakings namely a) NTPC Limited, b) Power Finance Corporation Limited, c) REC Limited and d) POWERGRID Corporation of India Limited.

4) On 14.01.2021, respondent No. 2 invited Detailed Invitation for Bids (IFB) for design, manufacture, supply transport, installation, testing and commissioning of Off Grid Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems of 1-10 HP in Selected States on PAN India basis, including complete system warranty and its repair and maintenance for 5 Years under MNRE KUSUM scheme ComponentB.

5) Respondent invited e-bids from eligible bidders for the aforesaid work under Single-stage Three-envelope bidding process through E-tendering.

6) Pursuant to the IFB dated 14.01.2021, petitioner submitted its bid with the relevant documents vide the E-tendering process, as per the format prescribed by the respondent. The Respondent issued the Envelope receipt on 18.02.2021 and duly acknowledged the documents.

7) On 03.03.2021, the Technical Qualification bids were opened by Respondent No.2 and the petitioners bid was rejected, insofar the petitioner was not included in the Envelope Name: Price Bid. Vide communication dated 20.05.2021, the petitioner got to know that his technical bid had been rejected.

8) Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner on the same date i.e. 20.05.2021 addressed a communication to Respondent No. 2 requesting Respondent No.2 to inform the reasons for Petitioners disqualification. Subsequent to the said communication, respondent No.2 on 21.05.2021 vide an auto- generated response, informed the petitioner that the petitioners bid was found to be non-responsive upon technical evaluation.

9) The Petitioner on 21.05.2021 addressed another communication seeking the basis of which petitioners bids was declared non-responsive. Since no reply was received, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition.

10) When the matter came up before this Court on 02.06.2021, this Court directed the respondent to disclose the reasons for holding the petitioners bid to be non-responsive (within 2 weeks). This Court further directed the tender in question not to be finalised till the next date of hearing.

11) Pursuant to our order of 02.06.2021, the respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and the reason for rejection has been stated in Para B (x) which reads as under:

"(x) It is submitted that at the stage of Technical Evaluation, the Bid of the Petitioner was found non-responsive, since the Bidder has participated in 11 Clusters (States) the requirement of cumulative