Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ.
M/s Sushil & Company - Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India and others - Respondents
CWP Nos. 12433, 12506 & 12508 of 2016
Decided On : 06-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Chhibar, Mr. Robin Dutt
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Mr. Anurag Chopra
Compliance with tender qualification conditions and submission of required documents is essential for the acceptance of technical bids.
Headnote:
Tender - Rejection of Technical Bids - MTF Clause 3 - [HTC Jind, Pillukhera and Alewa Nagura Centres in FCI District Rohtak] - [Clause 3(I), Clause 3(II), General Instruction No.3] - The court discussed the interpretation of MTF Clause 3 regarding the qualification conditions for tender and the requirement of experience certificates and EPF documents. The court highlighted the need for experience equivalent to 50% of the estimated value of the contract and the submission of EPF documents as per the tender notice. The court found that the technical bids were rightly rejected based on non-compliance with these requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner firm's technical bids for three FCI Centres were rejected due to the interpretation of MTF Clause 3 and non-submission of EPF documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the technical bids was justified based on the petitioner's failure to meet the qualification conditions outlined in MTF Clause 3 and the non-submission of EPF documents as required by the tender notice.
Issues: Interpretation of MTF Clause 3, Compliance with General Instruction No.3, Rejection of Technical Bids
Ratio Decidendi: The technical bids were rightly rejected due to the petitioner's failure to meet the qualification conditions and submit the required EPF documents as per the tender notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the rejection of the technical bids by the respondents.
Ramendra Jain, J.
1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 12433, 12506 and 12508 of 2016, filed by one and the same firm, namely M/s Sushil and Company, claiming the similar relief. The controversy in these petitions is regarding the tenders for HTC Jind, Pillukhera and Alewa Nagura Centres in FCI District Rohtak, respectively, for the Link Rail Head Jind,
2. Briefly stated, vide tender notice dated 15.04.2016 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.3-Food Corporation of India invited tenders for different Centres. The estimated contract value of the contract for HTC Jind, Pillukhera and Alewa Nagura Centres was Rs. 3,19,46,000/-, Rs. 4,20,43,000/- and Rs. 61,42,000/-, respectively. In the general instructions, it was specifically mentioned by respondent No.3 that for detailed terms and conditions, Model Tender Form (for short Rs. MTF') (Annexure P-2) is applicable. The tender was called in two parts, i.e. (i) technical bid and (ii) price bid. The petitioner firm applied the tender online for aforesaid three Centres and submitted the technical bid and price bid, as mentioned in MTF, along with all the documents. The experience certificate of the petitioner firm (Annexure P-3) issued by District Office of respondent No.1 was also uploaded. Some experience certificates from the State Agencies, issued by HAFED Jind, CONFED District Office, Hisar, CONFED District Office, Fatehabad, Food & Supply Controller, Fatehabad and District Food & Supply Controller, Jind (Annexure P-4 collectively) were also annexed by the petitioner firm. The experience certificate in the proforma prescribed at Appendix-VI (Annexure P-5), as prescribed in column 3, Sub clause-2 of MTF, was also uploaded by the petitioner firm. In addition to these, the petitioner firm uploaded the online deposit EPF challans with the EPF code number (Annexure P-6 collectively) to show that nothing was due against it.
The case of the petitioner firm is that ignoring all these documents arbitrarily, vide order dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P-7) its technical bids in respect of all the aforesaid three Centres were rejected on the ground that (i) its experience of Rs. 98,08,338/- could not be counted as per MTF Clause 3 (II), and (ii) no due certificate for EPF in respect of relevant experience period was also not uploaded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the end of Clause 3 of the MTF, a note was given to the effect that “The year for the purpose of experience will be taken as financial year (1st April to 31st March) excluding the financial year in which the tender enquiry is floated.”
Therefore, in view of this note, the amount and period of experience certificate of the petitioner firm has been interpreted arbitrarily, as experience of the petitioner for the financial year 2014-15, i.e. from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, is of Rs. 2,54,44,092/-. With regard to the second objection regarding non-uploading of no due certificate for EPF in respect of relevant experience period, learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner firm worked for FCI for Road Transport Contract (RTC), wherein there is no involvement of labour, and the monthly challan for which the labour was involved by specifically uploaded by the petitioner, therefore, as per General Instruction No.3 of the tender notice (Annexure P-1), no due certificate was not required to be submitted. Moreover, EPF code number and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period was deposited by the petitioner firm. Further, in the case of respondent No.5, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have mentioned that the EPF code is not necessary, whereas in the case of the petitioner, they are asking for no due certificate from RPFC.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while justifying the impugned order dated 02.06.2016 rejecting the technical bids of the petitioner firm with regard to HTC Jind, Pillukhera and Alewa Nagura Centres in FCI District Rohtak, argued that as p
