Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
M/s Super Construction Associates - Appellant
Versus
M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari & others. - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 335 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned
For the Respondent: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing, Mr. S.S. Chauhan
Preventing collusion and delay in contract execution to uphold fair competition and public interest.
Headnote:
WPMS No. 1254 of 2020 - Quashing of technical bid declaration - NIT, Package No. UT 07-04, Stage-II, Padampuri to Harishtal - WPMS No. 894 of 2020 - WPMS Nos. 654 and 677 of 2020 - Judgment dated 18.11.2020 - WPMS No. 677 of 2020 - Work Order issued in favor of the appellant - Financial bid opening - Collusion between the appellant and the respondent authorities - Delay in contract execution - Public interest
Fact of the Case:
The respondent authorities declared the technical bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive, leading to a series of legal challenges and court interventions. The appellant was awarded the contract during the pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The court found a pattern of collusion between the appellant and the respondent authorities to favor the appellant and delay the contract execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities and the appellant colluded to favor the appellant and delay the contract execution, causing a two-year delay. The court directed the respondent authorities to open the financial bid of respondent No. 1 and proceed with the contract execution without further delay. The court also ordered an examination of the conduct of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer for potential disciplinary action.
Issues: Quashing of technical bid declaration, Collusion between the appellant and the respondent authorities, Delay in contract execution, Public interest
Ratio Decidendi: The court intervened to prevent collusion and delay in contract execution, prioritizing public interest and fair competition.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authorities to open the financial bid of respondent No. 1 and proceed with the contract execution without delay. The court also ordered an examination of the conduct of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer for potential disciplinary action.
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Sanghi, J.
The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 1254 of 2020. The said writ petition had been preferred by respondent No. 1-M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari, a Partnership Firm, through its Partner Dalip Singh Adhikari. The appellant was impleaded as respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The appellant was served and represented in the writ proceedings. Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had preferred the said writ petition to seek quashing of the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Technical Evaluation Committee holding the writ petitioner as technically disqualified in respect of its bid submitted in response to the tender floated by the respondent authorities for Stage-II work for construction of ‘Padampuri Hairakhan Road Km. 54 Surya-Kaunta- Kakor-Harishtal (Hatyarital)’. The writ petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to open and operate its financial bid. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition of respondent No.1.
2. The background, in which the writ petition came to be filed by respondent No. 1, may now be noticed.
3. On 25th January, 2020, the respondent authorities issued a notice inviting tender (NIT) i.e. Package No. UT 07-04, Stage-II, Padampuri to Harishtal. On 26.02.2020, four bidders participated in response to the said NIT. On 08.05.2020, the Technical Evaluation Committee evaluated the technical bids and declared the respondent-writ petitioner’s technical bid to be responsive.
4. It appears that there were certain complaints made by some of the bidders inter se. The Technical Evaluation Committee examined the complaint made by the appellant herein against respondent No. 1, and without notice to, or hearing respondent No. 1, declared its technical bid to be non-responsive on 26.05.2020.
5. The said decision, which was arrived at behind the back of the writ petitioner, was not communicated to it, and it was uploaded on the website of the Department only on 10.06.2020, when the financial bid opening was fixed on 11.06.2020. Thereby, there was hardly any time given to respondent-writ petitioner to respond to the declaration of its technical bid as non-responsive, after it being declared responsive, in the first instance, on 08.05.2020. The respondent authorities opened the financial bids of two bidders on 11.06.2020.
6. Respondent No. 1 sprang into action and challenged its being declared non-responsive on 26.05.2020 by filing WPMS No. 894 of 2020. That writ petition was allowed on 23.06.2020, and the declaration of the technical bid of respondent No.1 as non-responsive vide order dated 26.05.2020, was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to re-examine the issue of the bid of respondent No. 1 being responsive, or non-responsive, after granting an opportunity to it to represent in the matter. Without granting any opportunity to respondent No. 1, the respondent authorities again declared the bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive on 03.07.2020. On 15.07.2020, being oblivious of the decision taken on 03.07.2020, respondent No. 1 sought information with regard to compliance of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 23.06.2020. Only thereafter, on 27.07.2020, the Executive Engineer, for the first time, sought the comments of respondent No. 1 to the complaint made by the appellant. On 28.07.2020, respondent No. 1 filed its reply. On 31.07.2020, the respondent authorities reiterated the order dated 26.05.2020, thereby holding respondent No. 1 to be technically non-responsive.
7. However, this decision was again not uploaded immediately on the website of the respondent authorities, and it was uploaded only on 05.08.2020 in the afternoon. On the very next date, i.e. 06.08.2020, the respondent-writ petitioner prepared its writ petition, which was filed on 07.08.2020, and numbered as WPMS No. 1254 of 2020. Advance copies were served on the private respondent, i.e the
