Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3242
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. Vazifdar, Avneesh Jhingan, JJ.
Taj Inder Pal - Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation Of India And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2911 of 2018
Decided On : 21-02-2018
Aashish Chopra, Adv., Samriti Arora, Adv., K.K. Gupta, Adv., Gurminder Singh, Adv., Anurag Chopra, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific requirements of the undertaking for NIT Clause 20 did not apply to RTC contracts, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's bid was unjustified.
Headnote:
TENDER - Rejection of Technical Bid - NIT Clause 20 - RTC Contracts - [Clause 20 of NIT] - The court discussed the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for a Road Transport Contract (RTC) due to failure to upload the required undertaking. The court analyzed the specific requirements of the undertaking and concluded that the petitioner's bid should not have been rejected based on NIT Clause 20.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his technical bid for a Road Transport Contract (RTC) due to failure to upload the required undertaking. The first respondent informed the petitioner of the rejection during the pendency of the petition, citing a violation of clause 20 of the NIT.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's bid based on NIT Clause 20 was not justified, as the specific requirements of the undertaking did not apply to RTC contracts.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid based on the failure to upload a specific undertaking for RTC contracts as required by NIT Clause 20.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the specific requirements of the undertaking, including references to basic rates and transportation, did not apply to RTC contracts, and therefore, the rejection of the bid was unjustified.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned decision rejecting the petitioner's technical bid, directing the first respondent to open and consider the petitioner's financial bid along with the bids of other eligible bidders.
JUDGMENT
S. J. Vazifdar, C. J —The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his technical bid in respect of tenders invited by the first respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the officers of respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is the private respondent in whose favour the first respondent has awarded a contract.
2. When the petition was initially filed, no reasons were furnished for the rejection of the petitioner's bid. During the pendency of the petition, the first respondent, by an e-mail dated 08.02.2018 informed the petitioner that his technical bid was rejected as he had not uploaded the undertaking for notice inviting tenders which is a violation of clause 20 of the NIT.
3. The first respondent issued notice inviting tenders (NIT) online on 27.11.2017 for the appointment of contractors for loading/unloading/handling and transport of foodgrains and allied material and Road Transport Contractor for movement of foodgrains and allied material by road to the depots of adjoining regions from the centres of Haryana region for a period of two years. It is important to note at the outset that two types of contracts are contemplated- handling and transport contracts and road transport contracts. The present case concerns a Road Transport Contract (RTC). The petitioner submitted a bid to be appointed as a Road Transport Contractor for the Ladwa-Srinagar route. The distance was specified as 279 kilometres. The estimated contract value was stipulated at Rs.15 lakhs. It is important at this stage to also note that in respect of HTC contracts, basic rates are notified. Thus, the nature of the financial commitment for HTC contracts and RTC contracts is different.
4. According to the respondents, two undertakings were to be uploaded, namely, "TENDER SUBMISSION UNDERTAKING FOR HTC/RTC (SPECIMEN)" and "UNDERTAKING FOR NOTICE INVITING TENDER (SPECIMEN)". The respondents contend that whereas the petitioner had uploaded the first undertaking, he had failed to upload the second undertaking.
(A) The undertaking that the petitioner uploaded reads as under:-
| "TENDER SUBMISSION UNDERTAKING FOR HTC/RTC (SPECIMEN) |
| To |
| The General Manager (Region) |
| Food Corporation of India |
| Regional Office, Haryana, |
| Panchkula. |
| Subject:- Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Tender. |
| Tender Reference No.______________________ |
| Name of Tender/Work |
| Dear Sir, |
| 1. I/We have downloaded/obtained the tender document(s) for the above mentioned Tender/Work from the web site(s) namely https://eprocure.gov.in/eprocure/app as per your advertisement given in the above mentioned website(s). |
| 2. I/We hereby certify that I/WE have read the entire terms and conditions of the tender documents from Page no.___ to ____ (including all documents like annexure(s), schedule(s), etc.) which form part of the contract agreement and I/We shall abide hereby by the terms/conditions/clauses contained therein. |
| 3. The corrigendum(s) issued from time to time by your department/organization too have also been taken into consideration, while submitting this acceptance letter. |
| 4. I/We hereby unconditionally accept the tender conditions of above mentioned tender document(s)/corrigendum(s) in its totality/entirety. |
| 5. In case any provisions of this tender are found violated, then your department/organisation shall without prejudice to any other right or remedy be at liberty to reject this tender/bid including the forfeiture of the full said earnest money deposit absolutely along with taking action as per other remedies available under law. |
| Yours Faithfully, |
| (Sign of the Bidder, with official seal)" |
(B) The undertaking which the petitioner, admittedly, did not upload, as a result of which his technical bid was rejected, reads as under:-
"UNDERTAKING FOR NOTICE INVIT
