Point of Law: Contract - Rejected the bid - Terms and conditions of tender document - Rejecting bid of petitioner was certainly not irrational in any manner whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. This decision, apart from being lawful and sound, appears to have been taken by respondents in view of failure of petitioner to comply with all terms and conditions stipulated in tender document.

JUDGMENT

1. The precise case of the petitioner, as set up in the petition, is that the petitioner society is an association of farmers constituted to ameliorate socio-economic status of its members and, among other things, deals in distribution and sale of agricultural inputs, including fertilizers for and on behalf of its members. The petitioner claims to have been particularly engaged in handling and transportation of fertilizers from Udhampur to different destinations in Kashmir Division. It is stated that the respondent company is engaged in procurement, manufacture, distribution and sale of various fertilizers throughout India. The respondent company, through its Zonal Office, is stated to have invited tenders, bearing E-Tender No- NFL/ZO/CHD/H&T/e-Tender/2021/100, for handling and transportation of fertilizer from its Rake Point at Udhampur to various destinations in Kashmir Division. Being engaged in transportation and handling of fertilizers, the petitioner also claims to have responded to the aforesaid NIT. After obtaining tender documents, the petitioner submitted its bid on-line in time as was required in terms of the tender document. The bids submitted had to be evaluated in two stages viz. technical and financial. The technical bid of the petitioner was evaluated/accepted and the petitioner, accordingly, informed about the decision that his bid has been accepted. Thereafter, the financial bid of the petitioner, together with the bids of those bidders who had been declared successful in technical evaluation, was opened on 5th of April, 2021. Upon comparison, as claimed, the rates offered by the petitioner (Rs.8,24,63,412/-) were found to be lowest with the second lowest bid (Rs.8,76,00,185/-) almost Rupees 50 Lacs higher than the bid of petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner society has contended that it was expecting that its bid would be accepted and formal orders issued in a day or two as per procedure in vogue, however, despite lapse of more than 10 days no formal information was received by it. The petitioner has proceeded to state that it has learnt from reliable sources that its bid is sought to be ousted from the zone of consideration on the specious ground that it did not quote rates in respect to columns relating to godowns and storage and that the functionaries of the respondent company are in touch with the second lowest bidder whose bid is about Rs. 50 Lacs higher than the bid of the petitioner. It is further pleaded in the Writ petition that this entire exercise has been initiated on extraneous considerations in order to pave way for allotment of contract to the second lowest bidder. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to allot contract to the petitioner, being the lowest bidder, uninfluenced by the fact that the petitioner has not quoted any rates against columns relating to godowns and storage.

2. Mr Tasaduq H. Khawja, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that in terms of the tender document, the bids had been invited for transportation and handling only and that the material was/is required to be delivered directly at destination points to retail dealers. The process, as stated, did not involve any storage in godowns and, as such, the storage and godown rates could not and have not been factored while evaluating the rates. In this behalf, the learned counsel submitted that there, thus was/is no basis to exclude the bid of the petitioner for not quoting rates against an item which was not involved in the execution of the contract.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after the petitioner was declared successful on technical evaluation, the financial bid of the petitioner has been found to be the lowest and, therefore, public interest demands that the bid of the petitioner is accepted and contract allotted in favour of the petitioner.

4. It is further pleaded