The court upheld the rejection of the technical bid based on the assessment of the bidder's capability to execute the work as per the tender document.

JUDGMENT

Suman Shyam, J. - Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. Aggrieved by rejection of the technical bid submitted by the petitioner, as communicated vide email dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure-C), the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No.2 had issued NIT dated 01.10.2020 inviting bids for execution of as many as four contractual works including the work of "Constructiion of 6 (six) nos. Government Model College at 1. Sonitpur (Borsola), 2. Tinsukia (Doomdooma), 3. Chirang, 4. Udalguri, 5. Baksa and 6. Majuli." In response to the NIT dated 01.10.2020, the writ petitioner herein, besides two other bidders including the respondent No.3, had submitted their bids for the aforesaid work for Udalguri which was at Sl. No.4. The total work was valued at Rs.14,36,21,373/- and the time for completion was 24 months. As per the condition No.4.3 of the bid document, the bidders were required to furnish information inter-alia about the major items of construction equipment and also information as regards any litigation, either current or pending during the last five years, in which the bidder was involved together with information about the parties concerned and the disputed amount. In so far as the list of key plants and equipments to be deployed in contract work is concerned, Appendix-II of the Tender Document had laid down the type of equipments, maximum age as on 01.07.2019 and the total number of equipments required to be deployed by the contractor. After consideration of the petitioner's bid, the Tender Evaluation Committee had rejected the same. The decision of the Bid Evaluation Committee was, therefore, communicated to the petitioner by email dated 25.11.2020.

4. Taking note of the grievance expressed in the writ petition, this Court had issued an interim order dated 27.11.2020 restraining the respondents from issuing the work order with regard to Udalguri. That is why, no work order could be issued to the successful bidder till date.

5. The official respondents have appeared and filed affidavit through the respondent No.2 disclosing the grounds on which the petitioner's technical bid was rejected. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit dated 07.12.2020 filed by the respondent No.2 would be relevant herein and therefore, are extracted herein below :-

"5. The deponent begs to state that the clause 4.3(IV) stipulates "Major items of construction equipment proposed to carry out the Contract". The petitioner in his bidding documents has given inadequate numbers of equipment like Water Tankers, Concrete Vibrators (different sizes), Welding Machines, Plastering Machines, painting machine, Piling Rig etc. for carrying out the works for construction of the Government Model College at Udalguri.

A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 18-11-2020 along with Technical Bid Evaluation Report are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1.

6. That the petitioner furthermore has disclosed that the petitioner has a Money Suit pending against the Director of Museum, Assam in his bidding documents."

6. However, during the course of hearing of this case the learned departmental counsel submits that he is not pressing the ground taken on account of litigation history. As such, the only question that would now arise for consideration in this proceeding is as to whether, the decision taken by the authorities to reject the technical bid submitted by the petitioner on the ground of possessing inadequate plants and equipments was vitiated by arbitrariness and illegality.

7. Mr. Banik fairly submits that the particulars of plants and equipments furnished by his client in response to Appendix-II did fall short of the prescription made by the respondent No.2. However, according to Mr. Banik, additional pla