IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA 5137 of 2025 The Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the writ petitioners :- Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv.

Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Jayant Bajaj, Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Krishna Chauhan, Adv.

Ms. Tulika Sil, Adv.

Ms. Paulomi Ghosh, Adv.

For State :- Mr. Samrat Sen, AAG.

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, AGP. Mr. S. Guha Biswas, Adv.

Hearing concluded on :- 19.03.2025 Judgment on :- 25.03.2025 Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. Rejection of the petitioners’ bid at the technical evaluation stage is impugned in the instant writ petition.

2. In response to a Notice Inviting Bid for repair and rehabilitation of existing distressed bridges of National Highway 60 (New National Highway 14) under package 4, the petitioners submitted its bid. The project was of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the repairing work is under the aegis of the Government of West Bengal, Public Works Department (Roads Wing).

3. The bid of the petitioners was declared as non responsive at the technical bid stage due to non fulfilment of the following criteria: (a) Some important points deleted (i.e. Sl. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) from Letter Comprising the Technical BID Statement format (which are applicable to both single and joint venture (JV) bidders), as specified in Appendix-IA of the RFP as per clause 2.1.4, 2.11 and 3.2.6 of the RFP. (b) Certificate for Net Worth methodology adopted for calculating such net worth is not submitted by the bidder as per provisions of Clause 2.2.2.9 (ii) of RFP. (c) Necessary certificates from the statutory auditor for Bid capacity and value of ‘B’ (existing commitment) pursuant to Appendix –IA, Annexure VI of RFP submitted without Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN). (d) Necessary certificates from the statutory auditor for eligible projects, submitted without Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) by the bidder pursuant to Appendix –IA, Annexure III of the RFP. (e) Details of ongoing works pursuant to Appendix-IA, Annexure VIII of RFP is not submitted by the bidder. (f) Certificate regarding Compliance as per clause 2.2.1(d) of RFP (Land Border) is not submitted.

4. On the first ground for rejection learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that, the points which were deleted from the technical bid statement format in Appendix-1A are meant for joint ventures. The petitioners submitted their bid in the status of a company, and as per their understanding, the information in respect of the serial numbers 9-13 were not required to be mentioned, hence, deleted. The petitioners stress that there was no mention in the bid document that those serial numbers were required to be filled up even when the applicant is a company.

5. As regards the second, third and fourth grounds of rejection it has been submitted that the required certificate from the statutory auditor was duly submitted by the petitioners at the time of submission of the bid. All the required information to be mentioned in the certificate was available therein. The UDIN number was also mentioned in the said certificate.

6. As regards the fifth ground of rejection it has been submitted that the details of the ongoing works were also submitted in a tabular format. The starting date of the project, the construction period, value of the contract, the anticipated date of completion and other relevant facts were all disclosed.

7. As regards the sixth ground of rejection it has been submitted that as the petitioner no. 1 is an Indian company and is bidding in a project in India, accordingly, non submission of a certificate disclosing the land border ought not to be a ground for rejecting the bid of the petitioners.

8. It has been submitted that the alleged defects are all curable and minor ones. They are merely the ancillary conditions and the authority ou