The court emphasized the importance of considering the tender submission as per the terms and conditions at the time of submission and highlighted the authority's discretion to accept or reject tenders under Clause-23 of the NIT.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J.

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, as the proprietor of M/s CBM Transport, has filed this writ application challenging rejection of his technical bid of the tender for “Road Transportation of bulk POL products (MS/HSD/SKO/Branded Fuels) Ex BPCL location at Paradeep in the State of Odisha” vide email dated 23.05.2016, annexure-5. The reason for such rejection has been indicated as non-compliance of criteria mentioned in K.h of NIT as well as Clause-14 of Attachment-1, Attachment-2, Clause 15(c) of Attachment-5, Clause-3 & 5 of Attachment-8 and Clause-14 of Attachment-1 of NIT.

2. The fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) invited sealed tender for “Road Transportation of bulk POL products (MS/HSD/ SKO/Branded Fuels) Ex BPCL location at Paradeep in the State of Odisha” for a period of five years from the tank-lorry owners, quoting minimum five tank lorries for award of contract. The bid contained two parts, namely, technical bid and financial bid. The last date and time of submission of tender documents was fixed to 16.03.2016 at 14.30 hrs. In response to the said tender call notice, the petitioner submitted his bid offering 11 tank lorries of his own and another tank lorry bearing registration no. OD 09E 4650 belonging to one Nirupama Padhi with an undertaking, as provided in Clause-14, that neither the tenderer nor any tank lorry offered by him was involved in any litigation. Before offering the vehicle of Nirupama Padhi, the petitioner had checked up the papers of her vehicle and found the same in order.

Meanwhile, on 03.05.2016, Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No. 306 of 2016 was registered against Nirupama Padhi, the owner of the vehicle no. OD 09E 4560 (which was offered by the petitioner in his bid as one of the twelve vehicles), showing as an accused. So far as other 11 vehicles of the petitioner are concerned, even though not a single scrap of paper was furnished indicating their involvement in any litigation, the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected vide annexure-5, the email dated 23.05.2016 apparently for non-compliance of the criteria mentioned in K.h of NIT as well as Clause-14 of Attachment-1, Attachment-2, Clause 15(c) of Attachment-5, Clause-3 & 5 of Attachment-8 and Clause-14 of Attachment-1 of NIT. On receipt of the same, though the petitioner made a representation along with price bid through email, the same was not accepted. Hence, this writ application.

3. Ms. S. Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner states that by the time the petitioner submitted the technical bid on 16.03.2016, 11 vehicles of the petitioner including the vehicle bearing registration no. OD 09 E4560 of Nirupama Padhi were not involved in any litigation and, as it transpires from record, only on 03.05.2016, after the last date of submission of technical bid, Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No. 306 of 2016 was registered against Smt. Nirupama Padhi, the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. vehicle no. OD 09 E4560 showing as an accused. Consequentially, the entire technical bid was cancelled on various grounds as mentioned above. Such action of the authority is absolutely outcome of non-application of mind and contrary to the provisions of law. To substantiate her argument, she relied upon the judgments in State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and others, (2016) 1 SCC 724, Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95, Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Cooperation and another, (2001) 8 SCC 49, Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and others, (1993) 1 SCC 445, Raunaq International Ltd. V. IVR Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393, M/s. Jadumani Transport & Others v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (W.P.(C) No. 9523 of 2016 disposed of on 24.06.2016) and Mahender Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

4. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-