Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. Bist, J.
Garhwal Region Contractor Welfare Association and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2182 of 2016 (M/S)
Decided On : 10-03-2017
For the Appellant :U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sandeep Kothari, Advocate
For the Respondent:V.B.S. Negi, Learned Advocate General and Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
The court emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency in the tender process, highlighting the opportunity for clarification during the pre-bid meeting and the addressing of the petitioners' representation by the respondents.
Headnote:
TENDER - E-PROCUREMENT - [Standard Bidding Document for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) and Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008] - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash e-procurement notices and mandamus to provide all required documents for inviting bids for road construction under PMGSY. The court found that the petitioners had the opportunity to clarify issues during the pre-bid meeting and that their representation had been addressed by the respondents. The court also noted the petitioners' participation in previous tender processes under the same rules, leading to a dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash e-procurement notices and mandamus to provide all required documents for inviting bids for road construction under PMGSY. They claimed that the bidding documents did not provide detailed site plan, drawing, and other necessary information, making it impossible for them to assess the work and submit tenders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had the opportunity to clarify issues during the pre-bid meeting and that their representation had been addressed by the respondents. The court also noted the petitioners' participation in previous tender processes under the same rules, leading to a dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The primary issue was the alleged lack of necessary information in the bidding documents, preventing the petitioners from assessing the work and submitting tenders. The petitioners also raised concerns about favoritism and nepotism in the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioners had the opportunity to clarify issues during the pre-bid meeting and that their representation had been addressed by the respondents. The court also noted the petitioners' participation in previous tender processes under the same rules, leading to a dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had the opportunity to clarify issues during the pre-bid meeting and that their representation had been addressed by the respondents. The court also noted the petitioners' participation in previous tender processes under the same rules, leading to a dismissal of the petition.
V.K. Bist, J.
1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the e-procurement notices, issued on 02.07.2016, 04.07.2016, 05.07.2016, 06.07.2016, 13.07.2016 (Annexure No. 1).
II. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus by commanding the respondents to provide all the documents required by the petitioners mentioned in the Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition as well as in the Bidding Documents and thereafter proceed afresh for inviting Bids for the work of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna as detailed in the Annexure No. 2 of the writ petition or in the alternative before inviting the tenders as per the tender notices of the Annexure No. -1 and proceeding further on the same, the representation submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure No. -3 be decided and documents sought by the petitioners be furnished to them.
III. Any other suitable writ, order or direction, which in the interest of justice and under the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be issued.
IV. An interim order or direction by restraining the respondents from proceeding further and accepting the tenders on the basis of tender notices issued as mentioned in the Annexure No. -1 be issued.
V. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioners."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
The petitioner No. 1 is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its Vice President and Secretary respectively. The members of petitioner No. 1 society, including the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and other persons from the State of Uttarakhand, are the registered contractors of the Government of Uttarakhand and are eligible and entitled to participate in the Government, Government Undertaking and Local Bodies contracts. Respondent No. 2, on behalf of respondent No. 1, invited tenders for construction of roads and bridges under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna in the various districts of the State of Uttarakhand viz., Tehri, Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Dehradun, Bageshwar, Almora, Chamoli, Pauri, Rudraprayag, Champawat and Nainital through e-procurement notices issued on 02.07.2016, 04.07.2016, 05.07.2016, 06.07.2016, 13.07.2016. The respondents, on their official website, provided Standard Bidding Document for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) and instructions to the bidders, which in all, included 8 sections. According to the petitioners, the said documents were downloaded by the petitioners from the official website of the respondent. When petitioners came to know about the work through newspapers as well as from online sites, they downloaded the same from the official website of the respondents, i.e., http://pmgsytendersuk.gov.in/nicgep/app. On perusal of the bidding documents, the petitioners came to know that the same does not provide detailed site plan, cross section, L Section, camber, super elevation and dumping zones for excavated materials. Thereafter, the petitioners made inquiries about the same from the concerned officials of the respondents; but, they were unable to give any answer about the queries of the petitioners. When the petitioners could not get any success, they made a representation to the respondent No. 2, with a copy to the respondent No. 3, on 25.07.2016, which was received by the office of the respondent No. 2 on the same date. By the said representation, the petitioners requested the respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and to incorporate all the documents mentioned in the representation and in the bidding documents, so that they may be able to ascertain the actual site, size and amount of work to be performed by them and submit their tenders after visiting and examining the work site as per conditions No. 7.1, 8.3, 7A of sections 2, 3, 4 and other sections of standard bidding documents; but all in vain. It is submitted that the petitioners,
