The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a bid based on non-fulfillment of conditions laid down in the Standard Bidding Document is valid and cannot be challenged after the bid has been rejected.

Judgment

Rajesh Bindal, CJ. (Acting).—The present petition has been filed impugning rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner during technical evaluation thereof. The bid was submitted in pursuance to e-NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/503 of 2017-18 dated 10.02.2018 for the construction work of road from L044 - Khourgali to Radnote, Package No. JK14-519, Regular PMGSY (Batch-1, 2017-18), Stage-I, Block Pancheri, District Udhampur.

2. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that e-NIT in question was issued for construction of road from L044 - Khourgali to Radnote, Package No. JK14-519, Regular PMGSY (Batch-1, 2017-18), Stage-I, Block Pancheri, District Udhampur. The petitioner being eligible submitted his bid within the time permitted. The bid was to be submitted in two parts i.e. ‘technical Bid’ and the ‘financial Bid’. As per the procedure firstly technical bids were to be opened and those who qualified that stage, were to be considered for financial evaluation. However, the petitioner’s bid was rejected during technical evaluation. The decision was uploaded on 09.04.2018. The reason assigned was ‘rejected-technical’. No details were forthcoming. The petitioner later on come to know that there was evaluation of the bids on 07.04.2018, wherein the reason for rejection assigned was that similar nature work certificate is not as per requirement of the Standard Bidding Document (for short ‘the SBD’) and the information about litigation with the department was not furnished. Hence, the petitioner was treated as ‘non-responsive’.

3. In the aforesaid document, though may not be relevant for the case in hand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that date of the e-NIT was wrongly mentioned as 19.03.2018 though it was 10.02.2018. Further the date of document was mentioned as 07.03.2018 though it should be 09.04.2018, as the decision rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner was uploaded on 09.04.2018.

4. Referring to the conditions laid down in ‘the SBD’ the submission is that certain certificates were required to be annexed with reference to the works executed in the last five years and turnover thereof. 50% of which was required to be of civil construction works. Another important condition was that there could be indexing of the turnover by adding 8% p.a. on the turnover of the previous years. The base has to be five years from the date e-NIT was issued. If the bidder had executed road work under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (for short ‘the PMGSY’) in originally stipulated completion period, the turnover achieved has to be counted as 120% for the period of eligibility.

5. It was further argued that the petitioner firm was earlier registered in State of Punjab at Pathankot and was successful bidder of four works to be executed in between 2005 to 2008. Those were executed in time. In the year 2011, one work was allotted to him, however, there was a complaint made against the petitioner about his eligibility. The petitioner had to approach this Court by filing OWP No. 1620/2011 challenging the action of the authorities in declaring the petitioner ineligible. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated November 30, 2012. The matter was referred back for reconsideration. Despite positive observations made by this Court and the aforesaid judgment in favour of the petitioner, still his case was rejected vide order dated 24.01.2013. To challenge the same, the petitioner filed OWP No. 219/2013. As during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the works for which the petitioner was the lowest bidder and was subject matter of the litigation before this Court, fresh tender had been issued, OWP No. 910/2015 was filed. Both the petitions were taken up together and allowed vide judgment dated 18.04.2016. The stand taken by the petitioner was vindicated. To challenge the aforesaid order, the government filed two intra-court appeals bearing LPAOW Nos. 07 and 10/2017. The same were dismi