ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the award of contract in favour of the 3rd respondent M/s.Sharp Watch Investigation.

2. Heard Sri.Abhijeet, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.D.L.Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Facts in brief that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

A notice inviting tender is issued by the 2nd respondent on

18.10.2021 seeking to outsource 1500 manpower on contractual basis for a period of two years. The last date for submission of the bid was on 17.11.2021. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent both were participants in the said tender. The Tender Scrutiny Committee after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the tenderers and assessing their capability both on technical and financial side seeks to award the contract in favour of M/s.Sharp Watch Investigation, the 3rd respondent herein. On the award of contract, the petitioner files an appeal before the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority who by his order dated 14.10.2022 rejects the appeal confirming the award of tender in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is that order of the Appellate Authority which drives the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise two contentions, one that the award of contract in favour of the 3rd respondent is contrary to clause 9.2(f) of Section - 1 of the tender notification dated 18.10.2021, as the 3rd respondent who claimed to be a service provider was not in existence for a period for at least 5 years prior to the last date for the submission of bid. The second contention is in terms of clause 13.6. He would submit that an average of all the tenderers should have been taken into consideration, as the final bid submitted by all 3 tenderers were equal, which has not been done by the Tender Scrutiny Committee and therefore, he would seek quashment of the order in appeal and award of contract in his favour.

5. Learned senior counsel representing the 3rd respondent would take this Court to the documents appended to the statement of objections seeking to demonstrate that clause 9.2(f) has been strictly adhered to and the 3rd respondent did exist for more than 5 years prior to the last date of submission of the bid and would submit that the contract is awarded 16 months ago and the 3rd respondent has been executing the contract, right from the date of its award and what remains is only 8 months of the contract.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would seek to toe the lines of the learned senior counsel except submitting that the allegation qua clause 13.6 has also been considered by the Appellate Authority as the average of the three were drawn and it was seen that the turn over of the 3rd respondent was 124.47 crores as against the turn over of the petitioner which was shown to be at 104.56 crores. He would therefore contend that the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is in tune with the conditions of tender and in accordance with law.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The notice inviting tender dated 18.10.2021 results in participation of several tenderers two of whom are the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was awarded the contract in terms of the so notified tender finding that the 3rd respondent was eligible on all scores to be granted the contract. This is called in question before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejects the same by an order dated 14.10.2022. It is those actions that drives the p