Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Northeast Enginnering And Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the disqualification of his Technical Bid, pursuant to the Invitation for Bid (IFB) dated 16.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “NIT”) for “Composite Works on Open Domestic Competitive Bidding Basis”.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner being a Micro and Small and Small Enterprise (in short “MSE”), the petitioner was not required to deposit the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) for participating in the tender process, in terms of the 2012 Public Procurement Policy (PPP-2012) issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India. However, in spite of the exemption given to the MSEs in terms of PPP-2012 exempting them from submitting EMD, the petitioner’s Technical Bid has been disqualified on the said ground.
4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s Technical Bid should be set aside as the same is arbitrary.
5. Mr. S.
The exemption for Micro and Small Enterprises under the Public Procurement Policy does not apply to work contracts, as clarified by the Ministry of MSME.
The court upheld that 100% reservation for MSEs in public procurement is valid under the MSE Policy, rejecting claims of arbitrariness towards tender selection processes.
Medium enterprises are not entitled to Earnest Money Deposit exemption under government rules, highlighting the necessity for proper MSME classification in tender processes.
The MSE policy does not apply to works contracts or when the MSE does not provide the core services, rendering preferential treatment arbitrary.
A bidder must demonstrate work experience 'in his own name' as per tender requirements; failure to hear a necessary party warrants review.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
The court ruled that a contract involving both supply and installation qualifies as a works contract, which is outside the jurisdiction of MSMED Act, leading to the Arbitrator's award being set aside....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
