Back
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Slt Infracon Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against bid non-responsiveness (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. clarifications on bid security requirements (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner's argument citing acceptable security forms (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. state's argument on non-compliance with strict terms (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. interpretation of 'like' in security terms (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's understanding of emd requirements and errors in evaluation (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's determination on the tender committee's error (Para 22) |
| 8. final order allowing the writ petition (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
1. This writ petition has come to be filed by the petitioner namely, SLT Infracon Pvt. Ltd. seeking to challenge the decision taken by the tender committee under Annexure-6 at page 49 whereby the bid made by the petitioner to the respondents was held to be non-responsive for the following reason:
'Technically non-responsive due to submission of bid security in the form of FD instead of BG. This does not fulfil the Clause No.2.20.1 of DNIT (RFP)'
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to a corrigendum issued by the tender
The deletion of clauses in tender documents invalidates non-compliance claims, and the interpretation of 'like' supports flexible compliance with bid security requirements.
Submission of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) through bank guarantee was non-compliant with the mandatory electronic modes prescribed in the Detailed Tender Call Notice, and subsequent modifications to t....
Tender authorities possess the discretion to define submission requirements for bids, and courts should not intervene unless there is clear irrationality or arbitrariness in their decisions.
Strict adherence to tender requirements is essential, and deviations or errors in bid submissions cannot be rectified post-submission.
The invocation of Bank Guarantees must be aligned with contractual terms; unauthorized invocation is deemed arbitrary.
Medium enterprises are not entitled to Earnest Money Deposit exemption under government rules, highlighting the necessity for proper MSME classification in tender processes.
Article 226 of the Constitution this Court has to hold that the corrigendum relied upon by the respondent does not support their case and the decision taken by the respondent is arbitrary and runs co....
The submission of a bogus Bank Guarantee by a bidder justifies a two-year ban under tender conditions, as the term 'certificate' includes documents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
