The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the specific and unambiguous tender conditions and giving deference to the authority's interpretation of the tender document.

JUDGMENT

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Out of two participating bidders, technical bid of the petitioner was turned down as non-responsive and that of private respondent No.5 was held to be conforming to the Standard Bid Document. Financial bid of respondent No.5 was opened on 19.03.2020. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has moved the instant writ petition.

2. Respondent No.3 through an e-Procurement notice dated 17.01.2020, invited tenders for "Up-gradation of Dhelu to Bhatehar road Km. 0/0 to 13/400 (L-029) under Regular PMGSY II for the year 2019-20 (Package No.HP-08- 428) (Sub Head:- ROFD, C/o retaining walls, breast walls, Crate walls, construction of missing cross drainage work, Providing and laying GSB, metalling and tarring, Cement concrete pavement road side drain, road side parapets, W-Metal Beam crash barriers, PMGSY information board, sign boards kilometre stones, 200 mtr. RD stones etc. including five year routine maintenance)". Online bids could be submitted by 26.02.2020. The project was sanctioned by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna ('PMGSY' in short), Rural Road Project-II and is financed by the World Bank.

Petitioner and respondent No.5 participated and submitted their bids, which were opened on 26.02.2020. The technical evaluation of the bids was carried out by the Technical Committee on 04.03.2020. Technical bid submitted by the petitioner was found to be not conforming to Clause 4.4 A(b) of 'Instructions To Bidders' (in short 'ITB') as contained in Standard Bid Document (in short 'SBD') and thus was rejected as non-responsive. Technical bid of respondent No.5 was found to be responsive. His financial bid was also opened on 19.03.2020. Further procedure was not completed in view of the status quo order passed on 20.03.2020 in the instant writ petition.

3. The arguments raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner can be broadly considered under following main points:-

3(i). With respect to petitioner's eligibility: Petitioner's bid was compliant of provisions of SBD and ITB and thus could not be rejected by terming it as non-responsive.

3(ii). With respect to eligibility of respondent No.5: Bid submitted by respondent No.5 could not be accepted and ought to have been declared as non-responsive.

3(iii). Procedure to be followed in case of single bid: Without prejudice to above two arguments, after declaration of petitioner's bid as non-responsive, the financial bid of respondent No.5 could not be opened contrary to the guidelines owing to respondent No.5 being single bidder. Therefore, respondents should have invited fresh tenders.

4.

4(i). We have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General and Mr. Neeraj Maniktala, learned counsel for respondent No.5 on the factual and legal aspects of the above points.

4(ii). Eligibility of the petitioner:-

4(ii)(a). Clause 4.4A of ITB as contained in SBD, around which the submissions of the parties revolve under this head, is extracted hereinafter:-

"4.4 A To qualify for award of the Contract, each bidder should have in the last five years (5 years immediate preceding the year, in which the bids are invited, year means financial year);

(a) Achieved in any one year a minimum financial turnover as mentioned in the Bid Data Sheet (as certified by Chartered Accountant, and at least 50% of which is from Civil Engineering construction works). The estimated cost of the work would not include maintenance cost for 5 years and the turnover will be indexed at the rate of 8% per year.

(b) satisfactorily completed, as prime contractor or sub contractor, at least one similar work equal in value half of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which the bid is invited."

To become eligible for award of contract in terms of Clause 4.4A(a), a bidder must have achieved in any one year of immediately preceding last five years a minimum financi