The court affirms the need for validation of startup certification for bid exemption, and mandates a review of the certification's legitimacy.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a joint venture engaged in civil engineering construction, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the awarding of the contract to the 4^th respondent herein, based on Ext.P1 tender notification. The challenge raised is mainly on the ground that the 4^th respondent had availed exemption from furnishing the bid security as contemplated in Ext.P1, on the basis of a claim that the said respondent is a startup, engaged in the field of construction, as recognized by the Government in this regard.

2. A counter affidavit is submitted by respondents 1 to 3, controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and the 4th respondent also filed a separate counter affidavit.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the exemption availed by the 4^th respondent in the bid security. Ext.P3 contains the Standard General Conditions of Contract, which are made applicable to the Ext.P1 tender notification. As per Clause 5 of Ext.P3, a tenderer is required to submit the bid security of 2% of the estimated cost of the work, in respect of the estimated cost up to Rupees One Crore and Rupees Two lakhs plus 1/2 % of the excess of the estimated cost of work, in respect of the works beyond Rupees One Crore, subject to a maximum of Rupees One Crore. Note (ii) to clause 5 (1) of Ext P3 provides that, any firm recognized by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion as ‘Startups’ shall be exempted from paying bid security. The case of the petitioner is that, by availing exemption as contemplated above, the 4^th respondent participated in the tender process, without furnishing the bid security. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent does not have the necessary certification and recognition from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, to avail an exemption as referred to above.

5. However, along with the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents 1 to 3, the certificate of recognition produced by the 4^th respondent is produced as Ext.R1(c). Going by the same, it can be seen that the certificate has been issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department to Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. Validity of certificate was from 12.01.2023 to 19.01.2029. The 4^th respondent along with its counter a also produced the very same document. This was apparently downloaded from the web portal of the Department concerned.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the certificate produced as Ext R1(c), is not signed by any person and therefore, the same cannot be considered. However, on the other hand, it is the submission of the learned standing counsel for the respondents that, as far as Ext.R1 (c) is concerned, the same does not require signature, as it is a digital document uploaded in the web portal.

Anyhow, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6. It is seen that after filing this writ petition the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 2^nd respondent highlighting this aspect. Since, what is required is the examination of Ext.R1(c) and to find out whether, it is a document actually issued by the appropriate authorities concerned, the same can be decided by the 2^nd respondent after conducting necessary veri In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent.

Sd/-