Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal Writ No. 1699 of 2018
Decided On : 05-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Suren Uppal, Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Ms. Sneha Baul.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. S.S. Raghav, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Raunak Singhvi, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Ms. Vartika Mehra.
Headnote:
Articles of Association – Article 79 – Legal Services Commission – Innovations Limited – Essential Eligibility – Writ petition filed by appellant – Challenge in writ petition was to acceptance of technical – cards issued/proposed shall be total number of cards issued during financial year certificate of experience should be from Client Department should be signed by an officer not inferior to rank of Joint Commissioner or equivalent experience of State/Central Government/PSU in India shall only be considered – Satisfactory working/ completion certificate issued by client or along with the certificate issued by the client towards work in progress for more than one years nd contact information client contact person must also be provided – Held, Essential to maintain sanctity and integrity of the process of tender and also award of contract – Relying on ratio of decision of Supreme Court, we are of the view that the respondents are bound by the conditions and the bid conditions ought to have been complied with scrupulously otherwise non-adherence to the instructions would encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness – Which are totally opposed to rule of law very purpose of issuing instructions is to ensure their enforcement; lest the rule of law would be a casualty fourth respondent in seeking clarification itself being bad in law, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed and no direction could have been issued by learned Single Judge for evaluating price bid of writ petitioner since its technical bid did not meet essential eligibility criteria – Appeal succeeds.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th November, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the acceptance of the technical bid of M/s M. Tech Innovations Limited-Respondent No. 3.
2. A request for proposal was floated by the Transport Department of the State of Rajasthan on 18.10.2018 inviting bids to issue smart card based driving license/registration certificates. Clause 3.7 of the eligibility criteria as per the documents, vide Conditions Nos. 8 and 9 stipulated as under:-
8.
The bidder/lead or consortium partner must have issued at least 50 lacs SCOSTA cards or must have processed at least 75 lacs Smart Cards for IT based Citizen Services (Delivery/Facilitation) applications for any state/central government/PSU in India in last 3 financial years as on bid submission date. The cards issued/proposed shall be the total number of cards issued during the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The certificate of experience should be from the Client Department should be signed by an officer not inferior to the rank of Joint Commissioner or equivalent.
9.
The bidder/lead bidder or consortium partner should have experience in the field of IT as a System Integrator/ Operation with at least one project of worth 15 crore or 3 projects of worth 5 crore each within the last 3 years as on the bid submission date. The experience of State/Central Government/PSU in India shall only be considered.
A satisfactory working/ completion certificate issued by client or along with the certificate issued by the client towards work in progress for more than one years. The name and contact information (address, telephone number, fax, email id, website) of the client contact person must also be provided.
The same Clause, vide Condition No. 15 stipulated as under:-
15.
Power of Attorney (PoA) authorizing signatory for signing of the bid.
In the format at Appendix-III
3. Clause 4.3 of the documents reads as under:-
"4.3 Clarification of Bids
(i) To assist in the examination, evaluation, comparison and qualification of the Bids, the bid evaluation committee may, at its discretion, ask any bidder for a clarification regarding its Bid. The committees request for clarification and the response of the bidder shall be through the e-Procuring portal.
(ii) Any clarification submitted by a bidder with regard to its Bid that is not in response to a request by the committee shall not be considered.
(iii) No change in the prices or substance of the Bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted, except to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the committee in the evaluation of the financial Bids.
(iv) No substantive change to qualification information or to a submission, including changes aimed at making an unqualified bidder, qualified or an unresponsive submission, responsive shall be sought, offered or permitted.
(v) Document submitted during the clarification should not be of a date beyond the bid submission date."
4. Clause 4.6 reads as under:-
"4.6 Non-material Non-conformities in Bids
(i) The bid evaluation committee may waive any non- conformities in the Bid that do not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission, the Bid shall be deemed to be substantially responsive.
(ii) The bid evaluation committee may request the bidder to submit the necessary information or document like audited statement of accounts/CA Certificate, Registration Certificate, ISO/CMMI Certificates, etc. within a reasonable period of time. Failure of the bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its Bid. However, document submitted by the bidder, sh
