SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
Nandaur Haldwani Ujjwal Dharam Kanta Owners Society & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/B) Nos. 200, 235, 252 of 2023
Decided On : 26-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Virender Kaparuwan, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tender conditions must adhere to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 and should not be arbitrary or illegal.

Headnote:

Tender Conditions - Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation - Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 - The court quashed the tenders for Gola River and Kosi River, directing the respondents to issue fresh tenders strictly as per the provisions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions challenged the tender process for establishing/running, maintenance of computerized weighbridge, CCTV, internet, RFID in Gola River and Kosi River. The petitioners alleged that the tender process was carried out in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tender conditions were contrary to the provisions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 and were arbitrary and illegal. The court quashed the tenders for both rivers and directed the respondents to issue fresh tenders strictly as per the provisions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017.

Issues: The issues included the arbitrary tender process, incorporation of tailor-made conditions, violation of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017, and the rejection of bids.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tender conditions were arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017. The respondents failed to justify the disproportionate requirements and deliberate changes in the tender conditions. The court also found that the specified brands for the equipment in the tender were arbitrary and excluded other manufacturers.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the tenders, and directed the respondents to issue fresh tenders strictly as per the provisions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 for both Gola River and Kosi River. The respondents were also subjected to costs, and the Vigilance Department was directed to examine the conduct of the Managing Director and other officers responsible for issuing the illegal tenders.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. All these three writ petitions raise almost identical questions and issues. Therefore, all these petitions are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Before discussing the issues, as raised in all these petitions, it is relevant to give reference of the reliefs as sought in all these petitions. Hence, the reliefs as sought in these petitions are being reproduced as under:-

    (A) WPMB No. 200 of 2023.

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure No. 3) declaring only one bid of the private respondent as technically qualified and taking a decision to further the financial bid of the single, technical qualified bidder in order to grant him the contract.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to undertake re-tendering process calling for fresh bids strictly in consonance and in accordance with Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 (as amended).

(B) WPMB No. 235 of 2023

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the NIT dated 28.03.2023 (ANNEXURE NO. 1), more pertinently of not following e-bidding process/e-procurement, its condition with respect to EMD of 25L, Performance Guarantee of 2 crores, annual turnover of 10 Cr in each of preceding 3 years, condition of bidder to have “factory” of its own, not making single bid disqualified for financial assessment etc.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to undertake re-tendering process calling for fresh bids strictly in consonance and in accordance with Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 (as amended).

(C) WPMB No. 252 of 2023

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Tender Notice dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure-2) for non-following the mandatory conditions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 and also for adding condition no. 8, 9 and 30 in part I of this impugned tender document.

(ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue fresh tender process strictly in accordance with Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017.

3. In all these petitions the tender was floated by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation for the purposes of establishing/running, maintenance of computerized weighbridge, CCTV, internet, RFID (radio frequency identification device) in Gola River as well as in Kosi River. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 235 of 2023 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 252 of 2023 pertains to Gola River, whereas Writ Petition (M/B) No. 200 of 2023 pertains to Kosi River.

4. In Writ Petition (M/B) No. 235 of 2023 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 252 of 2023, which relates to Gola River, e-tender notice was issued on 28.08.2023, whereas in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 200 of 2023, which pertains to Kosi River the tender was floated on 12.07.2023. Pursuant to the aforesaid tender notices floated by the respondents-Corporation, the tenders were invited through two bid system.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents-Corporation carried out the tender process in an arbitrary manner and in the teeth of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Uttarakhand Rules 2017 for brevity) by incorporating the tailor-made conditions which suit the successful bidder.

6. At this juncture, the relevant condition as stipulated in the tender document are being reproduced herein:-

^^19- fufonk esa izfrHkkx cuk;s j[kus gsrq de ls de izFke rhu (Top Three) lQy izfrHkkfx;ksa dks gh foRrh; fufonk gsrq p;fur fd;k tk;sxk ,oa rnuqlkj gh foRrh; fufonk [kksyh tk;sxhA**

7. This clause 19 is in the tender, floated on 12.07.2023 which pertains to the Kosi River. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the tender which was floated for Gola River on 28.08.2023, this condition (clause 19) which requires that at least three responsive technical bids shall be requ

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top