SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, Mauna M. Bhatt, JJ.
M/S Lallooji And Sons Through Its Partner Nikhil Jagdishkumar Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Tourism Corporation Of Gujarat Limited & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 12487 of 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate With Mr Dhaval D. Vyas, Senior Advocate With Mraaditya P. Dave, Advocate For Mr Premal R Joshi
For the Respondent:Mr Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate With Ms Aishvarya, Mr Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate With Mr. Archit P Jani

IMPORTANT POINT
Strict adherence to tender requirements is essential, and deviations or errors in bid submissions cannot be rectified post-submission.

Headnote:

Tender - Writ Petition - RFP Clauses - The court analyzed the tender requirements and the validity of bids, emphasizing strict adherence to RFP provisions, leading to the conclusion that the respondent's bid was non-responsive due to procedural violations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a bid by the respondent, claiming it did not meet tender requirements for a project involving electric buses and support infrastructure at Rann Utsav, citing discrepancies in the financial bid submissions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's bid was non-responsive as it violated specific clauses of the RFP, particularly regarding the submission of financial bids, and that the respondent No.1 acted improperly by allowing a resubmission of the bid.

Issues: Whether the respondent's bid was non-responsive due to errors in the financial bid submission and whether the respondent No.1 had the authority to allow a resubmission of the bid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that strict compliance with the RFP is mandatory, and allowing a resubmission of the financial bid undermines the integrity of the tender process.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, declaring the bid of the respondent No.2 as non-responsive and invalid.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. RULE. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.

2. Since extreme urgency is cited by the learned senior advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers : -

    “A. Your lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondent 1 to accept the bid of respondent 2 as the same does not meet the tender requirements;

B. Your lordships be pleased to declare that the bid of respondent 2 is not valid and the same is liable to be rejected as not meeting tender requirements.

C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay the further proceedings and awarding of the Tender being "Overall Development, Operation and Management of Rann Utsav Destination at Dhordo, Kutch, Gujarat"

D. Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The petitioner is organizing large-scale public events, exhibitions, trade fairs, cultural and sports festivals etc. including Rann Utsav at Dhordo Tent City, Kachchh since 2013.

5. The respondent No.1 – Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and 100% subsidiary owned by the Government of Gujarat. It is organizing "Rann Utsav" at the White Salt Desert near Village Dhordo, Kachchh by employing contractors and agencies.

6. Since the tenure of the petitioner had ended, the respondent No.1 invited bids from the interested builders for Overall Development, Operation and Management of Rann Utsav Destination at Dhordo, Kachchh, Gujarat.

7. The respondent No.2, is a bidder along with the petitioner herein, who had bid for the present Tender. The writ petition pertains to the component for deployment of electric / diesel buses and other support infrastructure for ferrying visitors to White Rann from parking developed by Respondent No. 1.

8. The writ petition pertains to the component pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the bidders had placed their bids. The present dispute arises out of the bids placed for the sub-project, titled as “Electric Buses and other support infrastructure”. By way of the said project, the Agency (Contractor) was to provide for buses to commute from the bus station till, the White Salt Desert.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2, on the suggestion made by the respondent No.1, modified the financial bid, more particularly Annexure-4, which pertains to inviting the service Buses (Diesel and Electric) and other support infrastructure from parking to White Rann.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

10. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 submitted their financial bids to the respondent No.1 for all the sub-projects of the present contract. He has further pointed out the RFP, more particularly, Stage 4 – Evaluation of Financial Bids. While inviting the attention of this Court to Clause 4.4.4 of the RFP, which pertains to the electric buses read with the Annexure-I and Annexure-4 of the Financial Bid, it is submitted that the respondent No.2 had filled in two Annexures-4, which is impermissible. It is pointed out that the petitioner had sent an Email on 14.08.2024 at 5:30 p.m., to the respondent No.1 pointing out the discrepancy in filling up the Financial Bid, more particularly Annexure-4. It is submitted that as soon as such discrepancy was pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 on the very same day at 9:13 p.m., asked the respondent No.2 to submit the modified Annexure-4, which pertains to detailed breakup of price bid for bus services and accordingly, the respondent No.2 re-submitted the Annexure-4, which forms the part of the Financial Bid.

11. It is submitted t

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top