The rejection of the lowest bid based on unjustified TDS deductions violates tender conditions and principles of fairness under Article 14.

JUDGMENT :

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, which is a proprietorship firm, by way of this writ petition, seeks direction to opposite party no.5 to declare it as L1 in the tender process, pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 07.10.2021 under Annexure-1, since the price quoted by the petitioner, i.e. Rs.9,56,071/- per month, is the lowest amongst all bidders and the same is substantially lower than the bid price of opposite party no.6, and to issue work order in favour of the petitioner.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that opposite party no.5 issued notice dated 07.10.2021 under Annexure-1 inviting tenders from intending registered firms/contractors for execution of cleaning, sanitation and waste disposal services at Ward Nos.1 to 10, 12 to 15 and Marathiguda area of Gunupur Municipality for a period of one year. The bid was of two parts, i.e., technical bid and financial bid. In the said NIT, a tentative estimation of the monthly expenditure for engaging the requisite number of sweepers and supervisors for carrying out the tender work was given. As per the estimation of the authorities of Gunupur Municipality, the tentative cost for hiring of the requisite number of sweepers and supervisors would come to Rs.9,51,573/- per month. Though the amount was only a tentative figure, it is given to understand that the tender selection authorities had treated the same to be the base price.

2.1 Pursuant to the NIT, the petitioner firm submitted its tender in the prescribed format along with all the requisite documents and fees/deposits. All total 11 nos. of firms and individuals had participated in the tender process, out of which only four, including the petitioner, qualified in the technical bid stage, namely, opposite party no.6-Asish Kumar Pattanaik, M/s. Manju Services and M/s. Winners Security & Labour Services. Subsequently, the financial bids of the aforesaid four bidders were opened and it was found that the bid price of the petitioner was Rs.9,56,071/- per month, whereas bid price of opposite party no.6, M/s. Manju Services and M/s Winners Security & Labour Services were Rs.9,61,188/-, Rs.9,75,604.46/- and Rs.9,98,131/-respectively. Therefore, the bid price of the petitioner was the lowest amongst all other bidders.

2.2 Since the entire tender process had taken place in the offline mode, none of the bid documents were uploaded online and therefore, the petitioner is unable to produce the tender documents of the other three bidders. Despite having quoted lowest price, the petitioner was not declared as L1, but the authorities of Gunupur Municipality declared opposite party no.6, who is the second lowest bidder, as the successful bidder. The petitioner ascertained the reason for non-awarding of work in its favour that even though it quoted lowest price, but the same was not accepted, since upon deduction of TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) @ 1% of the bid value, the figure quoted by the petitioner would go below the base price. Since opposite party no.5 considered the TDS deducted price to be the bid value of the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner was disqualified. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner having undisputedly quoted lowest price amongst all the bidders, it should have been declared as L1. Since the TDS is the issue between the petitioner and the Income Tax Department, opposite party no.5 has no role to play. It is further contended that by going into the issue of TDS, opposite party no.5 has arbitrarily o