Non-compliance with tender submission requirements, including necessary documentation and signatures, justifies the rejection of a technical bid regardless of prior acceptance.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr J Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr R R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12. Mr M Biswas, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and Mr N Deka, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 11.

2. The petitioner, herein, has challenged the acceptance of the technical bid of the respondent No. 6, and further, sought for a writ for setting aside the decision so taken to hold the technical e-bid of the petitioner, non-responsive. The petitioner has also sought for a direction that the respondent authorities be directed to accept the petitioner No. 1’s technical e-bid and open the financial bid.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the District Collector, Lakhimpur District, had issued a tender for IMFL off-licences at Narayanpur Town, at Lakhmpur District, bearing Tender Reference No. EXCI/679/2023-EXCISE-LKPR, dated 24.07.2024, whereby electronic bids were invited.

4. Before further dealing with the facts involved, it is relevant to take note of, some of the clauses of the Notice Inviting Tender. Clause-6 of the said Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘the NIT’), stipulates the documents which would comprise the Bid. In Clause-6, of the said NIT, there are references to the various documents, which are required to be submitted. Amongst them, taking into account the issues involved, for the purpose of the instant dispute, are Clauses - 6.2.5, 6.2.15, 6.2.19, 6.2.20 and 6.2.27. The said clauses are quoted hereinunder:

6.2.5. Copy of Income Tax Returns along with Balance Sheets for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 (any three years in sequence) and statement of ‘Net worth’ as certified by a Chartered Accountant.

6.2.15 Bakijai Clearance certificate.

6.2.19 Medical Fitness certificate of proprietor/partner(s)/director(s).

6.2.20. Police Verification Report.

6.2.27 Bank particulars of partners.

5. Clause-7 stipulates the procedure to apply. In terms with Clause-7.6, all pages of the documents submitted by the bidder are required to be signed by the authorized signatory, and shall also be affixed with the bidder’s entity stamp. The said clause being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:-

“7.6. All pages of the documents submitted by the bidder shall be signed by the authorized signatory and shall also be affixed with the Bidder entity’s stamp.”

6. A further perusal of the said NIT would show that the bid would be of two separate parts, i.e., technical and financial bid, and the financial bid would be opened, if the bidder is technically qualified.

7. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of that in pursuance to the said NIT, the petitioner No. 1, as well as the respondent No. 6, submitted their e-bids. The record reveals that on 02.09.2024, the bids of the petitioner No. 1, as well as the respondent No. 6, were opened and in spite of admitted shortfall of certain documents, the petitioner No. 1’s technical bid was held to responsive, as would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee dated 21.09.2024.

8. The respondent No. 6, having noticed that the bid so submitted by the petitioner No. 1 was not in terms with the NIT, immediately approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 4971/2024, challenging the acceptance of the technical bid of the petitioner No. 1. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order