JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioner assails the technical evaluation summary dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) vide which the technical bid submitted by the petitioner for being appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for Center Gohana, Rail Head, Gohana was rejected and the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-8) vide which representation dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) moved by the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by this Court in CWP No. 21995 of 2024 titled as 'Om Prakash Arya Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another' was rejected and the order dated 27.08.2024 was upheld.

2. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Food Corporation of India (respondent No. 1) for appointing of Handling and Transport Contractor (HTC) at Center Gohana under the two bid system from financially sound parties having requisite business competence. The terms and conditions of the NIT were to be read with the Model Tender Form (MTF) (Annexure P-2).

3. The petitioner submitted its bid on 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) and the technical evaluation report dated 27.08.2024 was mailed to the petitioner vide which the petitioner was declared to be technically non-responsive. As per the petitioner, the e-mail was perused by the petitioner on 30.08.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been erroneously held to be technically nonresponsive and that the bid was rejected in a Hyper-Technical Manner stating that the bank statement of last one year for the period ending on the date of publication of the NIT had not been submitted. It is the case of the petitioner that the bank statement was to be submitted from 20.06.2023 to 19.06.2024 for the limited purpose of KYC but the petitioner had submitted the statement from 03.07.2023 to 10.07.2024 which fell short by 13 days.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner instituted CWP No. 21995 of 2024 titled as 'Om Prakash Arya Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another' which was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondents to consider the concerns/grievances of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. In compliance with the aforesaid order, representation dated 31.08.2024 was submitted by the petitioner which has now been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-8). It is the case of the petitioner that the rejection is beyond the relevant terms and conditions as stated in the NIT and the MTF floated by the Corporation without considering the fact that the petitioner had complied with each and every requirement. It is also the case of the petitioner that the rate quoted by the petitioner is 1/6th of the rate quoted by respondent No. 3 who has been awarded the work vide allotment letter dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-9). It has, therefore, been averred that if the petitioner is held to be technically responsive and work is allotted to it, the same shall benefit the Corporation as also the State Exchequer. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially the tender in respect of the Gohana Center was floated on 24.01.2024 wherein a similar anomaly by one Noratan who was one of the bidders was overlooked and he was declared to be technically responsive. However, at a later stage the said tender was scrapped. Another example of one Deepu Verma who had submitted his bid in pursuance to another tender floated on 18.03.2024 with regard to the same center has been given. It has been averred that he was declared technically responsive despite his bank statement being short by few days but the said tender was also subsequently scrapped after which the present tender inquiry was floated.

6. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

7. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner has strenuously urged that the holding of the petitioner to be technically non-responsive and the