Back
2014 Supreme(UK) 576
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, J.
Ajay Prasad Uniyal – Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation Mussoorie and Another – Respondents
WP (M/S) No. 2766 of 2014
Decided On : 17.12.2014
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the Respondents.
Strict non-compliance of procurement rules does not necessarily invalidate a tender notice, and certain requirements such as minimum bid submission time and publication in national newspapers may not be mandatory in every case.
Headnote:
Tender Notice - Uttarakhand Procurement Rules - The court held that while the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules should be followed as far as possible, strict non-compliance would not vitiate the tender notice. It emphasized that the requirement of minimum three weeks' time for bid submission is not mandatory in every case, and the publication of tender notice in two national newspapers is not mandatory for contracts costing less than Rs.25 lacs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be a contractor, challenged a tender notice for non-compliance with Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, regarding the publication of the notice and the time given for bid submission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the strict non-compliance of Procurement Rules would not invalidate the tender notice, and the petitioner's denial of tender documents due to non-furnishing of F.D.R. was a question of fact not suitable for a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, regarding the publication of tender notice and the time given for bid submission, as well as the denial of tender documents to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the Procurement Rules should be followed as far as possible, strict non-compliance would not vitiate the tender notice. It also clarified that the requirement of minimum three weeks' time for bid submission is not mandatory in every case, and the publication of tender notice in two national newspapers is not mandatory for contracts costing less than Rs.25 lacs.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the tender notice was upheld.
Alok Singh, J.
1. Petitioner claiming himself Contractor is assailing the tender notice dated 30th November, 2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, tender notice ought to have been published at least two widely circulated national newspapers; as per Rule 13 (5) of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, minimum three weeks’ time from the date of publication of the tender notice should be given to submit the bids. In the present case, tender notice was not published in two widely circulated national newspapers and minimum three weeks’ time was not granted to submit the bids. In paragraph No.4 of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner went office of respondent No.2 on 08.12.2014 to purchase the tender papers, however, petitioner was not allowed to purchase the papers notice saying before purchase of the tender papers, petitioner had to deposit F.D.R. of Rs.50,000/-.
3. As per the tender notice, bids were to be submitted till 3:00 P.M. on 09.12.2014.
4. As to whether petitioner was denied tender documents on account of non furnishing of F.D.R. of Rs.50,000/- is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In my humble opinion, Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, as far as possible, should be followed, however, strict non compliance of Procurement Rules would not vitiate the tender notice. Even sub-clause (5) of Rule 13 of the Procurement Rules says, ordinarily, three weeks’ time should be granted in a tender notice. It means in every case, three weeks’ time is not required. Moreover, it is nowhere stated that cost of the contract was more than Rs.25 lacs, therefore, publication of tender notice in two national newspapers was not mandatory. Simply because petitioner was not allowed to participate in the tender notice, even it is presumed to be correct, is no ground to quash the tender notice or to issue the mandamus to issue fresh tender notice.
Therefore, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
