The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process of the respondents in finalizing the bid of respondent No. 4 was not found to be illegal or arbitrary, especially considering the petitioner's failure to participate in the tender process.

ORDER :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. The present petition has been fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the NIT (bid) open tender process with regard to Revised 3rd Call in relation to State Level Centralized Call Centre/Dial-100 Project Phase -II (2020-2025) "On Turn-Key Basis" and to direct the respondents-State to initiate the fresh tender process.

2. The petitioner is an existing Contractor performing the tender work. On 9.12.2020 the respondents have invited Tender (NIT). The last date for submission of NIT/Tender was 24.12.2020. It is alleged that the petitioner was restrained forcefully by using Government Agency i.e. GST who has made raid and sealed the office of the petitioner. On earlier two occasions two times advertisements were issued but no party has participated on account of harsh payment terms, as such 3rd Revised Call was made. It is further submitted that the respondents finalized the technical bid by exercising colorable powers on 2.2.2021. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's firm is having large infra-structure and performing various contracts works in all over the country. The petitioner is presently carrying out work of Dial-100 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Maharashtra.

3. In the year 2014-15, the State Government has invited open NIT for State Level Centralized Call Center/Dial-100. In pursuance to the said open NIT, the petitioner's firm did participate in open NIT process. The NIT was finalized in favour of the petitioner and the work order was issued on 2.5.2015 for five years i.e. from 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2020 and the petitioner's firm entered into an agreement. As per the term of contract the period of 5 years expired on 31st March, 2020. Thereafter, the State Government has extended the period by issuing First Extension order dated 18.2.2020, whereby the period was extended for another six months upto 30th September, 2020. The State Government has again extended the term of contract vide order dated 1.10.2020 for another six months i.e. from 1.10.2020 to 31st March, 2021. Now the extended period of contract is expiring on 31st March, 2021. The State has issued First NIT on 18th March, 2020 for State Level Centralized Call Center/Dial-100 Project Phase II (2020-2025) "On Turn-Key Basis" for fresh grant of contract. According to the petitioner various objections were raised in respect of certain conditions and therefore no one participated in the process for awarding of NIT. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Second Call on 28.10.2020 with modified conditions but still no one participated in the Second Call also. Thereafter, the State issued revised 3rd Call e-Tender (NIT) document on 9.12.2020 for State Level Centralized Call Center/Dial-100 Project Phase-II (2020-2025) "On Turn Key Basis", by relaxing certain conditions of the first and second call. On-line bid submission date commenced from 9.12.2020 upto 18 hrs. and the last date of submission of on-line bid was 24.12.2020, upto 1800 PM. The date of opening of Bid was 26.12.2020 at 12:30 hrs.

4. In the Tender there is a requirement to deposit Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the form of Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2.50 Crores. According to the petitioner, the petitioner stared preparing for submission of the bid in right earnest and in pursuance thereof got prepared a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.50 Crores on 22.12.2020. It is asseverated that the petitioner's Company was making preparation for submission of the price bid on 24.12.2020 but the office of the Commercial Tax M.P. conducted a raid with respect to Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the very date and time for last date for submission of the document. The said raid continued in the office of the petitioner upto 20.00 hrs and thereafter the office was sealed. Due to the above the petitioner's Company was precluded from submitting its bid for the tender in question. It is stated that in the tender process only two firms particip