The employer's decision regarding qualifications and eligibility of a bidder must be respected, and interference is warranted only if the decision is unjust or unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Petitioner is a Civil Contractor. He responded to a notice inviting tender issued by respondent no. 2, on 28.08.2020, for the purpose of reconstruction and development of rural roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Petitioner’s technical bid was initially found to be responsive. Rival bidders made compliant that petitioner did not meet requirement of condition contained in Clause 4.2 (g) of Standard Bidding Document, therefore, his technical bid is liable to be rejected. The Tender Technical Committee considered the complaint and declared petitioner’s technical bid to be non-responsive. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by Tender Technical Committee, on 20.11.2020, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari the Resolution dated 20.11.2020 of the Tender Technical Committee with respect to “Kharlekh- Bhanar Motor Road KM 1 to Naikana- Basora Motor Road (Stage II works) Phase XVII” assigned Package No. UT- 02-70, (Annexure No. 9) whereby the bid of the Petitioner has been disqualified;

I. Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.11.2020 opening and accepting the financial bid of the Respondent no. 4 for tender work “Kharlekh- Bhanar Motor Road KM 1 to Naikana- Basora Motor Road (Stage II works) Phase XVII” assigned Package No. UT- 02-70; (Annexure No. 10)

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to re-open the financial bid for the tender process for tender work “Kharlekh- Bhanar Motor Road KM 1 to Naikana- Basora Motor Road (Stage II works) Phase XVII” assigned Package No. UT- 02-70 after accepting the technical bid of the petitioner or in alternate issue a fresh tender for the Construction and Maintenance of Kathapuriyachina-Seraghat to Nayalamafi Motor Road Stage - I&II length 5.425;”

2. Petitioner’s technical bid has been declared to be non-responsive on the ground that it does not meet requirement of condition contained in Clause 4.2 (g), which is reproduced below:

“evidence of access to line(s) of credit and availability of other financial resources/ facilities certified by banker (the certificate being not more than 3 months old) up to the percentage (defined in the Bid Date Sheet) of the contract price of works, during the implementation of the works.”

3. From the aforesaid condition, it is apparent that the certificate issued by the banker should not be more than 3 months old. The certificate submitted by the petitioner with his technical bid is at page no.29 of the writ petition. The said certificate does not bear any date. Since Clause 4.2 (g) of the Standard Bidding Document provides that the certificate should not be more than 3 months old, therefore, in the absence of date of issuance indicated by the banker in the certificate, the employer cannot ascertain as to whether the certificate is more than 3 months old or not. Thus, the decision taken by Tender Technical Committee on the complaint made by rival bidders cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. Law is well settled that, in matters of Government Contract, employer’s decision regarding qualifications and eligibility of a bidder has to be respected and interference would be warranted only when the decision, so taken, is so palpably wrong or unjust, which no reasonable person could have taken. This does not appear to be the case here, as rejection of petitioner’s bid is referable to Clause 4.2 (g) of the Standard Bidding Document.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the complaints made by rival bidders against acceptance of petitioner’s technical bid, were not communicated to him. Thus, according to him, impugned decision has been taken behind the back of the petitioner, without providing him opportunity of hearing.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, however, submits that no