Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Girin Deka - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam - Respondent
WA Nos. 113, 118 and 122 of 2014
Decided On: 25.07.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:D. Das, Sr. Advocate, R. Singha, A. Verma, B. Gogoi, P. Nayak, M. Thakuria, P.N. Goswami andN.J. Khataniar, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:I. Choudhury, V.L. Singh, SCs, B.D. Das, S.A. and H.K. Sarma, Advocates
Headnote:
Tender - Technical bid and Financial bid - Selection of tenderer - Grievance of appellants pertains to rejection of their technical bids as non-responsive - Chief Engineer, PWD(NH Works), Assam issued request for proposal (RFP) for collection of toll on Gangadhar Bridge, over river under Abhayapuri Construction Division for period - It was a two stage process for selection of tenderer for award of contract, technical bid and financial bid - From documents placed on record, it appears that 29 bidders had submitted their bids and after opening of technical bids, out of 29 bids, only 6 bids were found to be technically responsive - Accordingly, bids of 23 bidders were rejected as technically non-responsive - These 23 bidders included 3 appellants - Held, There is also no allegation of mala fide against any official of PWD – If PWD authorities have decided to strictly adhere to terms and conditions of tender, no fault can be found with such an approach - Decision relied upon by learned senior counsel for appellants i.e. case of Jespar I. Slong (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as question of higher price does not come into consideration at time of evaluation of technical bids - Price will be a relevant factor only if bid is found to be technically responsive, which is not position in present case - We are also mindful of fact that any interference at this stage may jeopardize tender process itself and may ultimately affect collection of revenue by State – Court view that no case for interference in decision making process of PWD while rejecting technical bids of appellants as non-responsive has been made out - Appeal dismissed.
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. The 3 writ appeals i.e. Writ Appeal No. 113/2014, Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 and Writ Appeal No. 122/2014 arise out of the common judgment and order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the 3 writ petitions filed by the appellants as writ petitioners. Writ Appeal No. 113/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 871/2014. Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 873/2014 and Writ Appeal No. 122/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 872/2014.
2. Matter relates to tender for award of contract of collection of toll over bridge on the national highway. Grievance of the appellants pertains to rejection of their technical bids as non-responsive.
3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted.
4. Chief Engineer, PWD(NH Works), Assam issued request for proposal (RFP) dated 20.12.2013 for collection of toll on Gangadhar Bridge, Bridge No. 837/1 (Bir Chilarai Dollong) over river Gangadhar on NH-31 under Abhayapuri Construction Division for the period from 21.01.2014 to 20.01.2015. It was a two stage process for selection of the tenderer for award of the contract, technical bid and financial bid.
5. From the documents placed on record, it appears that 29 bidders had submitted their bids and after opening of the technical bids, out of 29 bids, only 6 bids were found to be technically responsive. Accordingly, the bids of 23 bidders were rejected as technically non-responsive. These 23 bidders included the 3 appellants.
6. As per information furnished to Sri Girin Deka (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 113/2014), he was informed by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 13.02.2014 that his bid was found to be non-responsive as he had submitted Net Worth & Net Accrual in the name of M/s. Girin Deka & Company and also not in the prescribed format.
7. Md. Rezzek Hussain (Appellant in WA No. 118/2014) was informed that his bid was found to be non-responsive because latest Income Tax return for the year 2013-14 was not submitted and detail Litigation/Arbitration information/history was not reflected in the affidavit filed as per tender requirement.
8. In respect of Sri Prabir Kalita (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 122/2014), he was informed by the Chief Engineer that his bid was found to be non-responsive because detail Litigation/Arbitration information/history was not reflected in the affidavit and the Valuation Certificate submitted was not certified by Chartered Accountant.
9. Aggrieved, the appellants as writ petitioners instituted the aforesaid 3 writ proceedings before this Court assailing rejection of their technical bids as non-responsive.
10. Learned Single Judge after due consideration, dismissed the 3 writ petitions vide the common judgment and order dated 25.3.2014.
11. Hence, these appeals.
12. We have heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 113/2014, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 122/2014. We have also heard Mr. I. Choudhury as well as Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. HK Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants in their identical arguments have assailed the action of the authority in rejecting the technical bids of the appellants as non-responsive. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deviation pointed out by the authority for which the technical bids of the appellants were rejected, were minor deviations or no deviation at all. They contend that on the basis of such minor deviations, their tenders could not have been rejected as non-responsive, more so, when they had quoted higher price bids. Referring to the nature of the contract, it is contended that the contract does not require any engineering or technical skills since it is a contract relating to collection of toll. In such a contract, the foremost consideration should be the pric
