IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
SIPL Infracon – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India and Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 132 of 2023
Decided on : 21-11-2024
(A) Tender Evaluation Committee Report - Exemption for Startups - The petitioner challenged the rejection of their technical bid based on the Tender Evaluation Committee report dated 10.12.2022. Clauses 3.2A and 3.2E of the Notice Inviting Tender provided exemptions for startups from prior experience and turnover requirements, but not from registration requirements. The petitioner failed to submit the necessary Class 1 contractor registration certificate in the name of the startup partnership firm, leading to the rejection of their bid. (Paras 19-21)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to review the actions of the Respondent Authorities is limited to instances of illegality, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. The rejection of the petitioner's bid was found to be justified and not arbitrary. (Paras 22-24)
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. K. Tiwari, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I have also heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner on the basis of the Tender Evaluation Committee report dated 10.12.2022 and for directing the Respondent Authorities to accept the technical bid of the Petitioner and for other consequential reliefs.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that a Notice Inviting e-Tender was issued by the NHPC Ltd. i.e. the Respondent No.2 for the work of “River Bank protection/erosion control measures on the Left Bank of River Subansiri Downstream of village Gerki 1 (RD 28 KM - 29 KM).” As per the said Notice Inviting e-Tender, the bid security amount was Rs.13,31,000/- which was to be paid in the manner stipulated therein. The said notice Inviting e-Tender contains various clauses. Clause 3.2A, 3.2B and 3.2E being relevant are reproduced herein under:
a) Achieved in any one year in last three year a minimum financial turnover of at least two and half times the amount equal to the annualized estimated cost of works for which bid has been invited. (Annualized estimated cost of work = Estimated cost of work ÷ construction period in years).
(Estimated cost of work = Rs.6,65,26,134/-)
b) Satisfactorily completed, in last five year ending with last day of month previous to the one in which tenders are invited, at least one similar work equal in value to 80% of the estimated cost of work or two similar works each equal in value to 50% of estimated cost of work or three similar works each equal in value to 40% of the estimated cost of works.
Similar works means “River Bank Protection works, erosion control measures, River Training works, any other civil works along or across the rivers’
c) The bidder must be a registered Contractor with any Government/Semi Government Departments/NHPC Registration certificate allowing for undertaking works equivalent to estimated value (Class 1 or Class A or as the case may be) shall be submitted along with the bid.
3.2.B Each bidder must also produce with their Bid:
i) PAN No., GST Registration No. and EPF Registration No.
ii) A declaration that the information furnished with the bid documents is correct in all respects in form-5 form of declaration, Section-III.
iii) Such other certificates if any as defined in the ITB.
iv) The ‘Class-I local supplier’/‘Class-II local supplier’ at the time of tender, bidding or solicitation shall be required to indicate percentage of local content and provide self-certification that the item offered meets the local content requirement for ‘Class-I local supplier’/‘Class-II local supplier’, as the case may be. They shall also give details of the location(s) at which the local value addition is made.
3.2.E All Startups (whether MSEs or otherwise), falling within the definition as per Gazette notification G.S.R.501(E) dt.23.05.2017 or as amended from time to time are exempted from meeting the qualification criteria in respect of Prior Experience-Prior Turnover as per para 3.2A subject to their meeting the quality and technical specification. However, the Employer reserves the right to deny such exemptions to Startups (whether MSEs or otherwise) in case of circumstances like procurement of items related to public safety, health, critical security operations and equipment, etc.”
4. From a perusal of the above quoted Clauses, it would be seen that in terms with Sub-Clause (a) Clause 3.2A, the bidder is required to have achieved in any one year in the last three years a minimum financial turnover of at least two and a half times the amount equal to the annualized estimated cost of the works for which
New Horizons Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid due to failure to meet registration requirements, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
The court ruled that start-up exemptions do not apply to registration requirements for contractors, affirming the NHPC's rejection of the appellant's bid.
Bidders must provide complete and accurate documentation as required by tender specifications, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing decisions made by tender authorities unless there is c....
MSEs with valid Udyam Registration are exempt from turnover and experience criteria in bidding processes as per applicable regulations, and arbitrary disqualification on these grounds is unlawful.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with tender qualification criteria and upheld the authority of the evaluation committee in assessing bid documents.
Medium enterprises are not entitled to Earnest Money Deposit exemption under government rules, highlighting the necessity for proper MSME classification in tender processes.
A bid found technically non-responsive cannot be revived solely based on curable defects, as meeting minimum technical capacity is paramount for eligibility in tender processes.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.