Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3190
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. Vazifdar, Avneesh Jhingan, JJ.
Patter Transport Company - Appellant
Versus
Director, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department, Haryana And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6947 of 2018
Decided On : 03-04-2018
Anurag Chopra, Adv., S.K. Verma, Adv., Deepak Balyan, Adv.
The court emphasized that the rejection of a bid based on property valuation must align with the requirements specified in the tender terms and conditions, and the official respondents have the discretion to consider bids in accordance with the NIT.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Tender Process - Financial Bid Rejection - Property Valuation - Clause 4(ix)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to consider their technical bid and to restrain the official respondents from finalizing a contract with a private respondent. The petitioners' bid was rejected based on the valuation of their property for the tender process.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, directing the official respondents to consider the petitioners' technical bid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT). The court clarified that the technical bid cannot be rejected based on the non-compliance with Clause 4(ix) and left the decision of issuing the work order to the official respondents.
Issues: The rejection of the petitioners' technical bid, the validity of the property valuation for the tender process, and the authority of the official respondents to consider the petitioners' bid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the bid based on the valuation of the property did not meet the requirements of Clause 4(ix) and that the official respondents should consider the petitioners' technical bid in accordance with the NIT.
Final Decision: The petitioners' technical bid shall be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT, and the official respondents are not bound to accept any bid or issue the work order in favor of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
S.J. Vazifdar, C.J —The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 the official respondents, to consider their technical bid, to open their financial bid and to consider them for the allotment of the work. The petitioners also seek an order restraining the official respondents from finalizing a contract with respondent No.4 i.e. private respondent.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the official respondents invited e-tenders from various transporters and transport unions for transporting food grains from Mandi/storage points for the year 2018-19.
3. The petitioners and the private respondents, among others, submitted their bids. The petitioners' bid was rejected. The reason for the rejection was communicated only on 22.03.2018 i.e. after this writ petition was filed. The petitioners' technical bid was rejected on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Clause 4(ix) of the terms and conditions which admittedly formed a part of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT). Clause 4(ix) reads as under:-
"ix) Statement of Assets with valuation certificate from valuator along with documentary proof of immovable property other than residential house, which may not be less than 10% of the cost of contract value."
The value of the contract is about Rs. 1.83 crores, 10% whereof is Rs.18.30 lacks. The Naib Tehsildar issued a certificate dated 02.02.2018 valuing the property for the purpose of clause 4(ix) relied upon by the petitioner at about Rs.52 lacs. Absent anything else this met the requirement of clause 4(ix). The official respondents, however, rejected the technical bid on the ground that the Punjab National Bank held a lien in respect of the property to the extent of Rs.1.85 lacs. The property, therefore, was unencumbered to the extent of over Rs.50 lacs. The question is whether this met the requirement of clause 4(ix). We think it did.
4. Clause 4(ix) does not create a security in favour of the official respondents. It is not even the respondents' case that a lien or charge or a mortgage was created in respect of the said land. The official respondents in any event, therefore, could not proceed to recover any claim that they may have had against the petitioner by proceeding against the said property except as unsecured creditors. Had the requirement been to furnish unencumbered security it may have been a different matter altogether.
5. There is nothing to indicate that clause 4(ix) was to enable the official respondents to recover future dues, if any, against the petitioners. Had that been the intention the NIT would have provided for the creation of a security in respect of the property. The clause is also consistent with the official respondents i.e. the parties inviting tenders, being satisfied as to the financial capacity and ability of the bidder. The rejection of the bid, therefore, merely on the ground that the Punjab National Bank held a lien to the extent of Rs.1.80 lacs is not valid.
6. The private respondent contends that irrespective of the circumstances the petition ought to be dismissed as a contract has already been entered into between the official respondents and themselves.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this ought not to deprive the petitioners an opportunity of being considered in the tender process. The official respondents issued a work order dated 09.03.2018 in favour of the 4th respondent. An agreement was entered between them on 17.03.2018. The work was to commence only on 01.04.2018 i.e. after the interim order. Prior thereto on 20.03.2018 we passed an interim order interalia to the effect that any steps taken hereafter would be subject to further orders in the writ petition. As we noted earlier the impugned order was served upon the petitioners only on 22.03.2018. There is nothing to indicate that between 17.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 the private respondents altered their position to such an extent as to the warrant the dismissal of the writ petition althoug
