IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for bidders to comply with the bidding documents, including the submission of documents in the specified format. The judgment emphasizes the duty of the State Government to ensure fairness and transparency in the tender process, highlighting the importance of upholding the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Shri O.P. Mehta, learned Advocate with Shri R.K. Kulajit, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri N. Kumarjit Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents for furnishing reasons for the rejection of its technical bid vide communication dated 24-09-2021 via email and for providing a reasonable period of time to file reply to those reasons; to direct the respondents to issue a speaking order after the same being considered by them; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and allot the bid to the petitioner in case its bid being found to be the lowest amongst all the bidders.

[3.1] Facts and circumstances, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of civil engineering works for the last almost 20 years. It is an “AA” class contractor recognised by the Government of Rajasthan and is associated with various government projects. It has an impeachable track record and significant presence in the States of Rajasthan and Punjab.

[3.2] The Respondent No.2, the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as “the PHED”) issued an NIT dated 27-02-2021 inviting bids from amongst the eligible bidders for the Manipur Water Supply Project for providing drinking water supply to 13 towns. The last date for submission of bids was 19-03-2021 but it was extended from time to time, of which the last one being the day on 10-09- 2021. The petitioner being eligible for it, submitted its bids on 09-09-2021. Thereafter, on 11-09-2021, the petitioner received a communication via email from the respondents informing that it should submit the audited reports of the last three (3) financial years and pursuant thereto, the petitioner provided the requisite audited report(s) to the respondents on 12-09-2021.

[3.3] It was a bolt from the blue for the petitioner when it received a communication dated 24-09-2021 via e-mail informing very cryptically, arbitrarily and capriciously that its technical bid had rejected on the ground that it was not technically qualified at the time of technical evaluation. In other words, the respondents, without assigning any reason, decided that the petitioner was not technically qualified for the financial bids. Immediately thereafter, on 24-09-2021 it-self, the petitioner wrote a letter via email to the respondents requesting them for providing reasons for the rejection of its bid at the time of technical evaluation. The respondents, instead of providing reasons for the rejection of its bid in order to maintain transparency, integrity and sanctity of the entire bidding process, denied the same vide their email dated 25-09-2021 contending that any query raised after the technical evaluation, should be entertained only after the finalization of the tender.

[3.4] Being aggrieved by the said communications, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on various grounds. The rejection of its bid, was mechanical, arbitrary, cryptic and capricious with no reason being assigned for it and no transparency was maintained by them. The said communications smelt foul play and seemed to favour some other bidder in the guise of rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. The non-providing of any reason for the rejection of bids and entertaining all the queries only after the finalization of the tender are untenable for the reason that once the bid having been finalized, the third party rights would have automatically created as per the terms of the contract and it would become impossible for the respondents to undo the contract. Therefore, the present mechani