The evaluation of tenders must be completed within the validity period as per established rules, and suppression of material facts can lead to disqualification from participation.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned tender process bearing Ref.RC.No.440/Pur-II/2023, dated 12.01.2024 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to float a fresh tender in accordance with law without insisting on Clause - 4.9 of the tender.

2. The brief factual matrix from which this Writ Petition arises is that on 12.01.2024, a tender was floated under the Samagra Shiksha Project by the School Education Department, intending to provide sports and physical education equipment sets to 24,266 primary schools, 6,948 middle schools, 6,177 high and higher secondary schools, and district-level equipment sets to 38 districts for the year 2024-2025. This initiative aims to improve the physical fitness and mental health of students and all concerned. The total value of the tender was Rs. 74,00,00,000/-. The last date for bid submission was 22.02.2024, with technical bids scheduled to be opened on 22.03.2024 and price bids set to be opened on 31.05.2024.

3. Responding to the tender, nine persons, including the petitioner, submitted bids. Clause - 4.9 of the tender conditions mandates that the tenderer or the consortium member must not have been blacklisted by the Corporation or any Central or State Government departments, Quasi- Government Organizations, local Government bodies, or N.S.Us during the last five years as of the date of the tender opening. It is stated that even if the blacklisting has been revoked, the tenderer is still not eligible to participate in the tender. When the technical bid was evaluated, it was found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact relating to the blacklisting of its consortium partner by the Jharkhand Government, and therefore, the petitioner was disqualified.

4. Thereafter, the price bid was opened, and the tenders were evaluated. One Shakti Model Works was identified as L1. It is further stated that the rate quoted by the supplier was less than 50% of the estimated tender value; therefore, as an additional measure of caution, the bidder was directed to make a security deposit of 10% as per the letter dated 06.08.2024. Subsequently, by a communication dated 12.08.2024, the supplier requested leniency and sought to have the additional security deposit fixed at 5%. He also assured the quality of the goods and offered to supply samples in advance for the Corporation's satisfaction. Again, on 28.10.2024, the tenderer submitted a letter expressing concern about submitting the 10% additional security deposit.

5. The matter was placed before the Board, and on 12.12.2024, a decision was taken to direct the supplier to remit 10% of the tendered value towards the additional security deposit. It was also resolved to issue a letter of acceptance on a pilot basis for the supply of goods in two districts. Accordingly, the supplier also provided the additional security deposit on 15.01.2025, and the letter of acceptance was issued on 07.02.2025. Under these circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Heard Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause - 4.9 of the tender conditions is entirely unjustified, arbitrary, and perverse, as it seeks to debar an individual even after the revocation of their blacklisting. The learned Counsel further contends that the evaluation process and the awarding of the contract should have been finalised within the tender's validity period. According to the tender documents, the validity period is 120 days. Extensions may be granted beyond this period, but