IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA ON THE

20th OF NOVEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 34538 of 2024 M/S H.S. SERVICE PROVIDERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arnav Tiwari- Advocate for petitioner. Shri Kapil Duggal- Advocate for caveator.

Shri Shashank Shekhar- Senior Advocate with Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari- Advocate for respondent No. 4.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari In this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of technical evaluation dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure-P/4) as well as impugned order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure-P/4) and order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure-P/14) whereby the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning justifiable reason. The petitioner is also challenging the consequential action of respondent-Corporation in declaring respondent No. 4 as successful bidder. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the impugned tender dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1) with the further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to assess and open the financial bid of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner M/s H.S. Service Providers has been engaged in providing the work of mechanized cleaning service and sanitation conservancy services to the Railways and other government organizations. The respondent-Corporation issued NIT for outsourcing of manpower required for Cleaning and Sweeping Works for Five Groups under the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2- Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued corrigendum on 11.03.2024 whereby they had prescribed certain documents which have to be uploaded/provided along with bid/application. The respondent- Corporation subsequently issued another corrigendum on 12.03.2024 whereby certain conditions contained in corrigendum issued on 11.03.2024 were modified. The petitioner submitted their bids in pursuance of aforesaid NIT with the respondent-Corporation in prescribed format disclosing all the relevant information wherein all the necessary documents as sought by the respondent-Corporation including corrigendums were filed. However, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2024, respondent-Corporation without assigning any reason disqualified the petitioner in the technical evaluation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the technical evaluation only provides that documents are sought in eligibility criteria has not been provided but does not provide details of the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed representation highlighting the errors committed by the respondent-Corporation in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner-Company. No reasons whatsoever assigned before rejection of the technical bid.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 26993/2024 challenging the legality and validity of impugned technical evaluation dated 27.08.2024 and impugned order dated 03.09.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024 directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent-Corporation which shall decide the same and communicate the reasons for rejection of technical bid to the petitioner in order to invite explanation from the petitioner. In compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner submitted the representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents being annoyed declaring only 4 persons technically eligible. The respondent did not consider the objections submitted by the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation did not decide the objections raised against respondent Nos. 4 to 7. The respondents No. 4 has been declared as L-1 and respondents No. 5 to 7 have been declared as L-2. The respondents had pre-determined that the petitioner cannot be awarded contract for the reasons best