Experience of a firm is not in its entirety attributable to each individual partner, but attributable only to the collective effort of all partners concerned.

JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J. - The petitioner-M/s A.G. Construction Co., is a proprietorship concern. And vide this petition, prays for a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 02.11.2020 (P-6), whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner, upon technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee, was rejected being non-responsive, and also dated 20.11.2020 (P-12), vide which even the representation against rejection of its bid has since been declined. A Mandamus is also prayed for, commanding the respondent-authorities to reckon the experience the sole proprietor (Ajay Kumar Garg) of the petitioner concern had acquired, while being a partner in M/s B.G. Constructions Co. Bathinda (partnership firm) and accordingly, he be held to be technically compliant, and the bidding process be initiated afresh from that stage.

2. In brief, the case set out in the petition is that petitioner is an enlisted contractor in Class I category of building works of the Punjab Mandi Board and the Punjab Roads and Bridges Development Board. And as would be necessary to point out, earlier the petitioner was a partner in M/s B.G. Constructions Co. (erstwhile partnership firm), and held 50% share, whereas, Tarun Bansal and Varun Bansal were the other two partners who had 25% share each in the firm. For, the firm was dissolved on 25.6.2019, in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.6.2019, executed between the partners, it was agreed that they were free to set up their new ventures and could also use the technical and financial credentials of the firm corresponding to their respective shares. The respondent authorities, in August, 2020, vide tender notice No.06/2020, invited E-tenders under Two Bid System for construction of District Office Building at Bathinda, from appropriate class of approved contractors of CPWD, State PWDs, MES, Railways and Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises of the Central Government and State Government. To be eligible to bid, the tenderers required to have satisfactorily completed, during the last five years, at least, Three Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building/Institute Building works costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of the estimated cost (Rs.3,95,47,577/-) of the tender; or Two Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building/Institute Building works costing not less than the amount equal to 60% of the estimated cost of the tender; or One Multi Storey RCC Framed Structure Government Office Building/Institute Building work of aggregate cost not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost put to tender. As stipulated in the tender conditions, copies of experience/work completion certificates of requisite amount were required to be uploaded, along with the technical bid. The last date for submission of technical and price bid was 14.9.2020. The petitioner being fully compliant, in terms of the tender document, submitted his technical and price bid in time, along with the requisite fee. However, as posted on the Government eProcurement System Portal, on 02.11.2020, the tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected during technical evaluation, for the documents appended with the bid were not as per MTF. For neither any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before rejection of his technical bid, nor any explicit reasons were assigned, in support of the rejection, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on 5.11.2020. But, was orally informed, for the work experience of M/s B.G. Constructions Co., Bathinda (erstwhile partnership firm), could not be counted or reckoned as his experience, his bid was found to be nonresponsive. And, this was despite the fact that petitioner, along with its bid document, had submitted a representation dated 14.9.2020, wherein it was clarified that in terms of the settled law, the experience gained by the proprietor of the petitioner-concern, as partner in M/s B.G. Constructions Co., was required to be computed