Point of Law:
The amended clause only provides about the consequence thereof. It can be stated without any shadow of doubt that even if clause 6 would not have been amended, the first respondent, on the ground of non-production of the registration certificate, would have been legally justified to reject the bid. It is an essential condition incorporated in the instructions to bidders.

JUDGMENT :

Harsha Devani, J.

1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent - Amreli Nagar Palika (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent municipality”) to open all the bids which are qualified, including the bid of the petitioner, and after scrutiny of all the bids, to award the work order of work in question to the L-1 bidder.

2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm having registration of 'AA' Class and is, therefore, qualified for participating in tenders of any value. The respondent - municipality invited e-tenders for the work of construction of Cement Concrete Road with Tri-Mix at various areas in Amreli District with tender I.D.-376841 under the Mukhya Mantri Shaheri Sadak Yojana, 2018-19. The tenders were to be submitted online on or before 24.09.2019, and were to be opened on 27.09.2019.

3. The estimated cost of the tender was Rs.6,08,94,009/- with tender fee of Rs.12,000/- which was not refundable. Earnest money deposit of Rs.6,08,950/- was to be paid by the bidder along with the tender. Since the petitioner company was interested as well as eligible, it filled in the tender form and submitted the same along with tender fee of Rs.12,000/- and earnest money deposit of Rs.6,08,950/-. It is the case of the petitioner that bid was submitted within time. The preliminary bids and technical bids were to be opened on 30.09.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that it had offered a bid around 11% below the estimated cost of tender put by the respondent.

4. The grievance raised in the petition is that though the petitioner had submitted the online tender as well as its bid in physical form in time to the first respondent, the bid of the petitioner was not opened at all and the petitioner was disqualified at the initial stage by the respondent municipality without assigning any reason for such disqualification. This fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner when the online result was declared by the respondent municipality. It is further averred in the petition that apart from the petitioner there were six other tenderers, viz., the respondents No.2 to 7 herein. Thus, in all there were seven tenderers who had submitted their bids pursuant to the NIT by the respondent municipality. Out of the seven bids received by the respondent municipality, only three bids were opened and the other four bids, including the bid of the petitioner, were not opened.

5. Since the bid of the petitioner was not opened by the respondent - municipality, the petitioner approached the said respondent by a letter dated 14.10.2019, requesting it to assign the reason for the petitioner’s disqualification. Along with the said letter, the petitioner had also issued a statutory notice upon the respondent municipality, whereby it had raised grievances against the illegal practice and procedure adopted by the municipality in awarding tenders, stating that the procedure followed during the course of the tender process was against the norms and guidelines issued by the Government.

6. Since the petitioner’s bid was not opened at all and no reasons were assigned for not opening its bid, the petitioner approached the Chief Officer of the respondent municipality to inquire about the reason of its disqualification. It is the case of the petitioner that upon meeting the Chief Officer and requesting him to assign the reason for not opening its bid, the Chief Officer was annoyed and behaved rudely with the petitioner. It is alleged that the Chief Officer has stated that he can raise many grounds for the disqualification of the petitioner and everything is within his power and control and that he is not answerable to the petitioner. That the Chief Officer had said that the work will be awarded to the contractor of his choice and the petitioner may do whatever he wants to do.

7. Since the petitioner has not been informed about the reason as to why its bid was not opened, the petitione