The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to all tenderers.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI SHANKER JHA, J.

1. In response to the NIT dated 12.03.2021, floated by respondent-FCI for appointment of handling and transport contractor (HTC) at the Killianwali Centre under FCI Division, Faridkot, the petitioner submitted his tender. This petition has been filed for the technical bid submitted by the petitioner has since been rejected by the authorities on 04.05.2021 and whereafter even his representation against his disqualification has also been rejected vide order dated 11.05.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s tender was rejected on two grounds; firstly, the note recorded by the auditors on the profit & loss account as also the balance sheet for the financial year 2017-18 was missing in the documents (profit & loss account and Balance Sheet) for the subsequent year i.e. financial year 2018-19. Secondly, there was also a discrepancy as regards the dates mentioned on the balance sheet and the profit & loss account for the same year (2018-19), appended with the bid submitted by the petitioner.

3. It is urged that the note upon which insistence is placed by the respondents was not an essential part of the audited accounts and therefore, even in the absence of the alleged note, the petitioner’s bid on the basis of the audit report and accounts submitted by him could not have been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though the date mentioned on the balance sheet is 30.10.2020 and profit & loss account was 28.10.2020, but that was only a typographical mistake/error and therefore, ought to have been ignored by the Technical Evaluation Committee.

5. Further the rates submitted by the petitioner were lower than the rates submitted by respondent No.2 and therefore, the act of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid would result in financial loss to the Food Corporation of India. Thus, the impugned orders dated 04.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 deserve to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Food Corporation of India per-contra, submits that the petitioner’s audited accounts for the year 2018-19 did not contain an audit note and this fact is admitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the discrepancy in the dates mentioned on the profit & loss account and the balance sheet is also not disputed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in such circumstances as these requirements were mentioned in the tender notice itself and were to be strictly complied with by all tenderers, they cannot be treated as minor discrepancies, and therefore, could not have been ignored. It is urged that the authorities have examined all the objections raised by the petitioner vide a detailed order dated 11.05.2021 and have rejected the representation of the petitioner, which does not call for any interference.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-FCI further submits that a bare perusal of the documents/accounts submitted by the petitioner for the financial year 2017-18 at page Nos. 140 and 141 of the petition clearly show that the audit note was appended separately by the auditors in the profit & loss account and the balance sheet whereas the audit note is missing in the profit & loss account and the balance sheet submitted by the petitioner for the year 2018-19.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-FCI further submits that in such circumstances and in view of the provisions of Clause 8(iii), Clause 8(c)(iii) as well as clause 8(f) and (g) of Appendix-II of the MTF, the tender documents submitted by the petitioner were termed as incomplete and therefore, he was technically disqualified.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

10. As far as the factual aspect is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner in his representation filed before the respondent authorities, while replying to the deficiency in relation to the audit note, has stated that “though the said note may be inadvertently misse