Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
M/s Tata Metaliks Limited represented by Sri Sankar Bhattacharya – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
WP(C) 1405 of 2017
Decided on : 08-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. PK Biswas, Mr. P Majumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. TD Majumdar, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for expansive consideration in government tenders and highlighted the principle of not insisting upon strict literal compliance in appropriate cases.
Headnote:
BIS License - Tender Rejection - IS 8329:2000 - [Clause 15, Clause 20] - The court considered the rejection of a technical bid due to the non-submission of a valid BIS license for DI(K7) pipes as per IS 8329:2000. The petitioner's license was valid on the original date of submission, but the renewal was pending. The court emphasized the need for expansive consideration in government tenders and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's price bid based on the valid renewal of the BIS license.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's technical bid for procurement of DI(K7) pipes was rejected due to the non-submission of a valid BIS license, despite the license being valid on the original date of submission and subsequently renewed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the technical bid was based on a strict literal compliance without considering the valid renewal of the BIS license. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's price bid based on the valid renewal of the license.
Issues: The main issue was whether the document waiting renewal could be treated as valid when the renewal was granted retrospectively before the rejection of the technical bid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expansive consideration in government tenders and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's price bid based on the valid renewal of the BIS license, highlighting the principle of not insisting upon strict literal compliance in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's price bid based on the valid renewal of the BIS license. The court returned the original tender bid of the petitioner.
Heard Mr. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD 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 PNIe-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 & 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 & 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 & 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. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said decision is grossly arbitrary, illegal and completely unacceptable. He has refe
