Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3797
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, CJ, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY, J
Debashree Construction India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC 15311 / 2024
Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate, Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Standing Counsel (16)
A bidder's disqualification due to non-compliance with technical requirements, such as the absence of a date on a bank certificate, is valid and cannot be rectified by post-deadline clarifications.
Headnote:(A) Model Bidding Document - Clause 4.2 (g) - Disqualification of bidder - The petitioner was disqualified due to the absence of a date on the bank certificate submitted with the bid, which violated the requirements of the Model Bidding Document. The Technical Committee found the bid not qualified based on this valid objection. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that the clarification provided after the bid submission deadline could not rectify the initial disqualification. The court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it in limine. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the disqualification based on a complaint from other bidders, asserting that their bid was improperly rejected due to a technicality regarding the bank certificate.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disqualification, emphasizing the importance of compliance with bidding requirements.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of a date on the bank certificate warranted disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the lack of a date on the bank certificate created ambiguity regarding the validity of the credit facilities, justifying the disqualification.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-10-2024
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the disqualification made on consideration of a complaint made by the respondent nos. 6 and 7. Pursuant to an NIT, 15 bidders had submitted their tenders out of which one alone was disqualified as per Annexure-3. Two of the qualified bidders raised objections against the technical bid qualification of the others, including that of the petitioner; who also stood qualified. A further meeting was conducted by the Technical Committee in which by Annexure-5, the petitioner’s bid was found to be not qualified technically. The reason stated was that the certificate of the bank did not contain the date.
2. The petitioner admits that the certificate did not contain the date and produced Annexure-4 dated 7.9.2024, which is said to be in clarification of the earlier certificate issued. The disqualification was made on the allegation of violation of Clause 4.2 (g) of the Model Bidding Document (MBD). The Model Bidding Document has not been produced but as stated by the petitioner’s Counsel itself, it is for uploading the bank certificate showing the credit facilities. Admittedly, the certificate uploaded did not contain a date, in which circumstance, there was no clarity as the date on which such credit facilities were available to the petitioner and whether it was valid at the time of bidding. This was a valid objection on which the cancellation of the disqualification at the technical bid stage was made. A further clarification issued as per Annexure-4 cannot be accepted since it is far after the last date of bid submission.
3. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no reason to entertain the writ petition and we dismiss the same in limine.
