The court upheld the decision of the official respondents to declare the petitioner non-responsive, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the tendering process and the application of natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. The official respondents issued e-NIT No. 41 of 2024-25 dated 13.08.2024 in respect of the work captioned as “Allied Works at Transit Accommodation at Baba Daryadin Ganderbal” and the last date for submission of the bids was 30.08.2024 (4.00 pm). The date and time of opening of the technical bids (online) was 31.08.2024 at 11.00 AM. The official respondents received the bids of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5.The technical bids were opened on 03.10.2024 and both the bidders were declared responsive during technical evaluation. Thereafter, representation/complaint dated 03.10.2024 was submitted by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has concealed its ongoing work/existing commitment, in respect of work of “construction/raising of second floor of Admin, Block (Phase 3) towards south side of the Main Campus” and acting upon the said representation, a communication dated 30.11.2024 was issued by the official respondents in terms of which the petitioner was declared “Non-responsive” without affording any opportunity of being heard to it, as urged by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was never intimated about the representation/complaint submitted by the respondent No. 5 and as a matter of fact, it came to know about the said representation/complaint only after the said representation was considered and decision thereon was arrived at by the official respondents. The petitioner immediately after being declared “non-responsive” on 30.11.2024, on the next working day i.e. 02.12.2024 (01.12.2024 being Sunday) filed its objections in terms of Clause 22.6 of Standard Biding Documents (SBDs) of aforesaid e-NIT. The official respondents, without waiting for the mandatory period of two working days and allowing the petitioner to file objections against the decision of the official respondents, opened the financial bid of the sole responsive bidder i.e. respondent No. 5 at 02.17 pm on the same day i.e. 02.12.2024.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the mode and manner, in which the official respondents have dealt with the matter speak volumes of the arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers by the official respondents. It is also contended by the petitioner that before the opening of financial bid of the respondent No.5 at 02.17 P.M on 02.12.2024, a communication was uploaded at 11.41 AM on the portal by respondent No.4, in terms whereof, the e-NIT was revoked by respondent No.2 and despite revocation of the said e-NIT at 11.41 AM by the official respondents, the financial bid was opened thereafter, which clearly shows that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It is stated by the petitioner that had any opportunity of being heard been afforded to the petitioner, it would have been clarified that at the time of submission of bid i.e. on 30.08.2024, neither the letter of acceptance nor allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, as such, it would not constitute an „existing commitment or ongoing work‟ because bid was yet to be accepted by the concerned officer, rather the work was allotted to the petitioner only on 11.10.2024 i.e. 43 days after the last date of submission of the bids. The petitioner has further stated that almost in two similar cases, in terms of which the same issue of misinterpretation of Clause 4.6 of the SBDs i.e. disclosing of existing works which were being carried, was analyzed and decided in favour of the tenderers. By placing these facts before this Court, the petitioner has sought the quashing of communication dated 30.11.2024 in terms whereof the petitioner has been declared as “Non-responsive” in relation to e-NIT No. 41 dated 13.08.2024. Further reliefs are also sought for the quashing of communication dated 02.12.2024 in terms whereof the financial bid stands opened and quashing of communication dated 12.12.2024 in terms whereof the respondent No. 5 has been ordered