Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
A.K. Goswami, Ajit Borthakur, JJ.
Ravi Brothers A Registered Partnership Firm Being – Appellant
Versus
Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 127 of 2019
Decided On : 28-05-2019
D. Das, Adv., D. Saikia, Adv., D. Baruah, Adv.
Headnote:
Municipal Corporation - This intra-court appeal is preferred against judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in WP dismissing writ petition filed by appellant - A perusal of prayers made in writ petition goes to show that writ petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to set aside/quash Minutes of Tender Summary Report and any other consequential orders passed thereto along with a prayer not to award any contract either to respondent No - 5 or respondent No - 6 till opening of price bid of writ petitioner and only thereafter to take a final decision in matter - It is in view of aforesaid decision of Technical/Evaluation Committee in its meeting held writ petition was filed with prayers as have already been noted herein - Held, It was held that terms of tender notice cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous and they must be given a meaning and necessary significance - In aforesaid case question that had fallen for consideration was as to whether Bank Guarantee submitted by tenderer not in form prescribed by tendering authority but in its own form could be considered as a valid document - It was in this context Supreme Court had held that when a particular form had been provided there cannot be any justification for a tenderer to submit a Bank Guarantee devised in its own form - In instant case when bid was not submitted online by appellant in its entirety as required under IFB and SIB authority must be held to have rightly rejected appellants bid - On other hand respondent No - 5 as noticed earlier had submitted its bid online and learned Senior counsel for appellant had only sought to emphasize that because of respondent No - 5 having indicated two names in respect of motor bid of respondent N - 5 was also liable to be rejected - Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A. K. Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 6 was notified, but had not contested the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
2. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4479/2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition goes to show that the writ petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to set aside/quash the Minutes of the Tender Summary Report dated 09.07.2018 and any other consequential orders passed thereto along with a prayer not to award any contract either to respondent No. 5 or respondent No. 6 till opening of the price bid of the writ petitioner and, only thereafter, to take a final decision in the matter.
4. It is to be noted at the very outset that Letter of Acceptance was issued on 11.07.2018 and, thereafter, on 12.07.2018, notice to proceed with the work was also issued.
5. The appellant, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 responded to a Invitation For Bid (for short "IFB") dated 19.06.2018. The IFB was issued in respect of nine projects. In the present proceedings, the subject-matter of dispute pertains to Group No. SD 17-18/A. The Technical/Evaluation Committee in the meeting held on 09.07.2018 in respect of Group No. SD 17-18/A pertaining to "Supply, installation, testing and commissioning of pump and motor under Satpukhuri Treatment Plant, Panbazar Treatment Plant and Kamakhya Water Supply Scheme" including "Supply, installation, testing and commissioning of different capacity electrical motor driven horizontal centrifugal pump with squirrel cage induction motor under boosting pumping station", while holding the petitioner/appellant to be technically disqualified, had found respondent No. 5 and 6 to be technically qualified. It is in view of the aforesaid decision of the Technical/Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 09.07.2018, the writ petition was filed with the prayers as have already been noted hereinabove.
6. On the basis of the contentions advanced, the learned Single Judge had formulated three points for determination, which are as follows:
"(a) Whether the GMC authorities were obliged to seek clarification from the petitioner to collect further information in respect of the bid/tender submitted by the petitioner ?
(b) Whether the hard copies of documents submitted physically by the petitioner were liable to be evaluated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ?
(c) Whether the rejection of the bid of the petitioner by holding the petitioner to be technically disqualified is liable to be interfered with ?"
7. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as respondent No. 5, the learned Single Judge had answered Points (a) and (b) against the petitioner and, in view of the decision rendered in Points (a) and (b), the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that, necessarily and as a corollary, Point (c) had to be answered against the petitioner.
8. At this juncture, to understand and appreciate the contentions that have been advanced, it will be appropriate to indicate the reasons for which the Technical/Evaluation Committee, in the meeting held on 09.07.2018, had considered the technical bid of the appellant to be deficient. It was recorded as follows:
"M/s Ravi Brothers found technically disqualified as they have not quoted brand of the motor, MOC (Material of Construction), performance curve and declaration of internal quoting of the pump from manufacture unit, not fulfilled technical data sheet."
9. It must also be noted at this point that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an Interlocutory Applic
