Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 399
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. GANGELE & BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Raghuvanshi – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2012
Decided On: 16.7.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.S. Kirar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Raghvendra Dixit Government Advocate, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, Deputy Government Advocate, Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate.
Literal compliance of every term of the tender notice may not be insisted upon, and when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same.
Headnote:
FDRs - Bid Rejection - M.P. Rural Road Development Scheme - Condition No.6 - M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. M/s. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others; AIR 1991 SC 1579, Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Others (2002) 6 SCC 315
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner submitted bids for construction projects under M.P. Rural Road Development Scheme, but the bids were rejected due to the submission of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) issued by a bank not listed in the tender conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to submit FDRs issued by a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, as per tender conditions, led to the rejection of their bids. However, the court allowed the petitioner to rectify the mistake and submit the required FDRs within a week for reconsideration of their bids.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's submission of FDRs issued by a bank not listed in the tender conditions warranted the rejection of their bids.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation and Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Others to emphasize that literal compliance of every term of the tender notice may not be insisted upon. The court also noted that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to rectify the mistake by submitting FDRs issued by Nationalized/Scheduled Bank within a week, and if done so, their bids would be reconsidered for the contract works.
Shri N. S. Kirar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit Government Advocate and Smt. Nidhi Patankar, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 4- State.
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to the effect that the FDRs submitted by the petitioner, be accepted and also praying for issuance of any other relief as this Court may deem fit.
The respondent no.2 published NIT on 13-03-2012 in regard to construction of connecting Road under M. P. Rural Road Development Scheme. By the aforesaid notification, the bids were invited. The petitioner submitted its bid for six packages. One of the condition in the bid document was that Earnest Money Deposit in the shape of F.D.R./S.T.D.R/Call Deposit Receipt issued by Nationalized/Scheduled Bank located in India. The relevant condition is as Condition No.6 which is a part of Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid condition is as under:-
“6. Earnest Money Deposit in the shape of F.D.R./S.T.D.R./Call Deposit Receipt issued by Nationalized/ Scheduled Bank located in India or Bank Draft of any Nationalized/ Scheduled Bank located in India payable at Local Bank at Bhopal(MP) in favour of Executive Engineer of concern Division, RES, Madhya Pradesh shall only be accepted.”
The petitioner submitted its bid. However, it had deposited the FDRs [Fixed Deposit Receipts] issued by Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Guna. Consequently, the tenders of the petitioners were rejected vide order dated 28-04-2012 (Annexure P/5) on the ground that FDRs (Fixed Deposit Receipts) submitted by the petitioner, were not issued by Nationalized/Scheduled Bank.
During the pendency of the petition, this Court vide order dated 02-05-2012 directed to maintain status quo and it was continued subsequently also.
In the meanwhile, one tender was awarded in favour of the respondent No.5 M/s. Superian Construction. The respondents No. 1 to 4 in the return submitted that bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not submit FDRs issued from Nationalized/Scheduled Bank which was a condition precedent for submitting the bid.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner deposited FDRs (Fixed Deposit Receipts) issued by District Central Cooperative Bank. The Bank is a not a Nationalized/ Scheduled Bank. However, whether it is a Scheduled Private Bank or not, for the purpose of this, a list has been filed as Annexure R/2 and the followings are list of acceptable banks:
LIST OF ACCEPTABLE BANKS
Scheduled Commercial Bank SBI and Associates
1. State Bank of India
2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
3. State Bank of Hyderabad
4. State Bank of Indore
5. State Bank of Mysore
6. State Bank of Patiala
7. State Bank of Saurashtra
8. State Bank of Travancore
Scheduled Private Banks (India Banks)
1. Bank of Rajasthan
2. Bharat Oversea Bank Ltd.
3. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.
4. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
5. Vyshya Bank Ltd.
6. UTI Bank
7. INDUS SIND Bank Ltd.
8. ICICI Bank
9. HDFC BANK Ltd.
10. Development Credit Bank Ltd.
11. IDBI Bank Ltd.
Nationalized Bank
9. Allahabad Bank
10. Andhra Bank
11. Bank of India
12. Bank of Maharashtra
13. Canara Bank
14. Central Bank of India
15. Corporation Bank
16. Dena Bank
17. Indian Bank
18. Indian Overseas Bank
19. Oriental Bank of Commerce
20. Punjab National Bank
21. Punjab & Sind Bank
22. Syndicate Bank
23. Union Bank of India
24. United Bank of India
25. UCO Bank of India
26. Vijaya Bank
27. Bank of Baroda.
Admittedly, the FDRs deposited by the petitioner are not of a Scheduled Private Bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a technical mistake and the petitioner be permitted to deposit the FDRs of Scheduled Private Bank. There is no illegality because at present, the tenders have not been accepted.
Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 and 5 have contended that the petitioner has vio
