Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
M/s Tata Metaliks Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura, Rep. by the Secretary, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation – Respondent
WP (C) No. 1405 of 2017
Decided On : 08-01-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Biswas and Mr. P. Majumdar.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.D. Majumdar.
Headnote:
BIS License - Technical Bid Rejection - IS 8329:2000 - [Clause 15, Clause 20, Note No. III, Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273] - The court considered the validity of the BIS license for DI pipes as per IS 8329:2000 and the rejection of the technical bid based on the non-renewal of the license. It emphasized the need for expansive consideration in government tenders and directed the respondents to consider the price bid of the petitioner as the BIS license was valid by way of its renewal on the last date of submission.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's technical bid for procurement of DI pipes was rejected by the technical evaluation committee due to the non-renewal of the BIS license for DI pipes as per IS 8329:2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the technical bid based on the non-renewal of the BIS license was unreasonable and directed the respondents to consider the price bid of the petitioner as the BIS license was valid by way of its renewal on the last date of submission.
Issues: Validity of BIS license for DI pipes, Reasonableness of technical bid rejection, Compliance with tender conditions
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expansive consideration in government tenders and directed the respondents to consider the price bid of the petitioner as the BIS license was valid by way of its renewal on the last date of submission.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, and the respondents are directed to consider the price bid of the petitioner on accepting the technical bid as the petitioner’s BIS license was on the last date valid by way of its renewal.
If the license was found to be under renewal after the opening of the bid, the legal implications would depend on the timing and the validity of the license at the relevant stages of the tender process.
Based on the provided document, the court emphasized that the license was valid on the last date of submission due to the renewal being granted before the technical evaluation committee's rejection decision. If, however, it were established that the license was only under renewal after the opening of the bid and not valid at the time of submission or the decision, the bid could potentially be considered non-responsive or invalid, as the tender conditions require proof of a valid license at the relevant time.
The key legal principle is that documents submitted must be valid on the date of submission or the last date of the tender process, unless the tender explicitly allows for renewal or extension during the process. If the license was only under renewal after the bid was opened and the license was not valid at the time of submission or evaluation, the authorities might have grounds to reject the bid for non-compliance with the tender conditions.
Furthermore, if the renewal was granted retrospectively and communicated appropriately, the bid might still be considered valid. However, if the renewal was only granted after the bid evaluation and was not communicated or considered at the appropriate time, the bid's validity could be challenged.
In summary, the validity of the license at the critical stages—especially at the time of submission and evaluation—is crucial. If the license was only under renewal after these stages, it could adversely affect the bid’s acceptance unless the tender conditions or legal principles support considering renewal as sufficient for validity during the relevant period.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the technical evaluation committee taken on 02.11.2017 by rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive bidder, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It has been urged by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to accept their technical bid as valid.
3. The facts are mostly undisputed. The respondent No. 4 floated the Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) for procurement of DI (K7) pipes of different diameters for water supply schemes in Tripura for the year 2017-2018 according to the terms and conditions as mentioned under P-NIe-T No. 05/EE/DWS/SD/AGT/2017-2018. In the list of documents to be uploaded the following documents, amongst others, were asked to be uploaded:
(i) Valid registration of the tenderer as manufacturers of DI pipes.
(ii) Document in support of production capacity of the tenderer's DI pipe manufacturing unit.
(iii) Valid license to use BIS standard mark for stipulated times of DI (K7) pipes as per IS 8329:2000 (with latest amendments).
4. According to the petitioner, they filed all those documents. It has been contended that the documents were valid on original date of submission of the tender. In clause 15 of the tender it has been provided that all the statements, documents, certificates etc. submitted online by the tenderers will be securitized against specific criteria, parameters, terms & conditions etc. as stipulated in the tender document for necessary evaluation of the technical bids. The clarifications, particulars, documentary proof relating to the Technical bids if any, required from the tenderers, will be obtained. The tenderers shall agree in writing to furnish clarifications on the statements/documents submitted with the bids, particulars/documentary proof relating to their bids etc. if and when called upon to do so within stipulated time. It has been further provided in clause 20 of the tender that the tenders (both technical bid and price bid) shall be scrutinized in accordance with the specification/conditions stipulated in the tender document. In case of any discrepancy of non-adherence to any condition, the Tender Accepting Authority shall communicate the same, which will be binding on both the tender opening authority and the tenderer. In case of any ambiguity, the decision taken by the Tender Accepting Authority on tenders shall be final and binding.
5. The petitioner submitted the tender on 06.09.2017 and the license issued by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was also submitted with the tender documents along with other documents and there is no dispute that the license was valid on the date of submission. However, the petitioner has asserted that he had applied for renewal of his licenses and that was pending. The application for renewal was not rejected by the BIS and accordingly they have issued the license on 05.10.2017 certifying that the license is renewed for a further period of two years from 27.09.2017 to 26.09.2019 and as such the petitioner’s license was valid on the last date of submission of tender as mentioned in the NIT but the respondents have rejected the technical bid, submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not submit a valid license according to the conditions as mentioned in the NIT and the petitioner has been adjudged as a non-responsive bidder. The said decision was taken by the technical evaluation committee of the Public Works Department (DWS) and on their recommendation the Chief Engineer, PWD (DWS), Tripura has accepted that recommendation giving seal on rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner.
6. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said decision is grossly arbitrary, illegal and completely unacc
