In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure projects.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Chief Engineer, Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 02.03.2024, inviting item rate bids in two bid system for various construction works under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). Pursuant to said notice, petitioner submitted bid in respect of work of up-gradation of Khunt-Kakrighat Motor Road to Charnbend Motor Road.

2. Procurement Evaluation Committee recommended to reject the technical bid of petitioner and the said recommendation was accepted by the Bid Accepting Authority vide order dated 12.08.2024. Reasons indicated by the Procurement Evaluation Committee for making recommendation to reject petitioner’s bid are as follows:

(i) Same evidences for key machineries are submitted by other bidders for different works

(ii) Certificate of 01 No. diploma holder not readable.

(iii) Bank Certificate submitted, but not as required.

(iv) Authority to seek reference submitted, but not as required.

3. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his technical bid, petitioner has approached this Court. Petitioner has also challenged the decision taken by competent authority whereby technical bid of respondent No. 4 was found to be responsive. Reliefs sought in the writ petition are extracted below for ready reference:

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order / bid evaluation report 12/08/2024 (annexure - 2) issued by respondent department and impugned order/resolution dated 23/08/2024 (annexure- 6) qua the respondent M/s Dalip Singh in as much as these orders declare the technical bid of respondent M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari as responsive.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order / bid evaluation report 12/08/2024 (annexure-2) issued by respondent department and impugned order/resolution dated 23/08/2024 (annexure 6) qua the petitioner in as much as these orders declare the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to declare the technical bid of the petitioner as responsive and bid of respondent M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari as non-responsive and to open the financial bid of the petitioner.

4. Sub clause (d), (e), (g) and (h) of Clause 4.2 of Section 2 of Standard Bidding Documents which was produced in Court by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, read as under:

“4. Qualification of the Bidder

4.2 All bidders shall include the following information and documents with their bids in Section 3, Qualification Information unless otherwise stated in the Appendix to ITB:

(a) .....

(b) ......

(c) ......

(d) evidence of ownership of major items of construction equipment named in Clause 4.4 B (b) (i) of ITB or evidence of arrangement of possessing them on hire/lease/buying as defined therein.

(e) details of the technical personnel proposed to be employed for the Contract having the qualifications defined in Clause 4.4 B(b) (ii) of ITB for the construction.

(f) ..............

(g) evidence of access to line(s) of credit and availability of other financial resources/ facilities (10 percent of the contract value) certified by banker (the certificate being not more than 3 months old.)

(h) authority to seek references from the Bidder's bankers;

5. Su