JUDGEMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR) Date : 12-03-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner who runs a proprietorship firm has invoked the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the decision as contained in letter no. 356 dated 18.02.2024 whereby the technical bid of the petitioner has been disqualified and; consequent upon quashing of the same, he prays for a direction upon the respondents to consider the financial bid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in response to the NIT bearing no. 8/2023-2024 in relation to execution of various works, issued under the Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioner alongwith others participated in the said tender. It is informed that the petitioner has only concerned with Group no. 17 i.e. “Renovation work of Rajbandha Ahar”.

4. After completion of necessary paraphernalia, the technical bids of the bidders were evaluated however, the petitioners technical bid has been disqualified on the ground of non-submission of affidavit in terms of clause 20 of the NIT.

The said decision is under challenge herein.

5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that evidently the requirement of signing undertaking in proper words cannot be considered an essential condition of eligibility. The respondents have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on hyper technical ground and the disqualification is based upon non-essential condition. The submission of undertaking in proper words are definitely ancillary and subsidiary conditions and thus, the same should not have been enforced by the respondents with the same strictness.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Poddar Steel Corporation vs. M/s Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 273, C.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1990 (2) SCC 488 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.

1979 (3) SCC 489 .

7. Referring to the afore-noted judgments, it is vigorously argued by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that an authority inviting tender is not bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail and is entitled to waive a technical irregularity of little or no significance. It is the mandate of the law that in all tender process, the requirements can be broadly categorized as those which lay down essential conditions of eligibility and others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary to the main object. In the case of essential condition of eligibility, the authority issuing the tender would be required to impose it rigidly while with respect to other ancillary or subsidiary conditions, it is open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon a strict literal compliance of such condition in appropriate cases.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State referring to the affidavits which have been produced as a part of Annexure P/4 to the writ petition, submitted that the affidavits are clearly not in terms with clause 20 of the NIT and thus, the disqualification of the petitioner in technical bid has no infirmity.

9. This Court before parting with the final outcome thinks it apt and proper to quote the relevant clause no.

20 of the NIT which reads as follows:-

“20. fufonkdkjksa }kjk fufonk dkxtkrksa ds lkFk layXu lHkh dkxtkrksa dh lR;rk ds lEcU/k esa ?kks’k.kk i=@”kiFk i= ¼tks fufonk lwpuk izdk”ku ds ckn dk gks½ ewy esa fnukad&30-01-2024 dks 5-00 cts vijkg~u rd lEcfU/kr dk;kZy; esa fuEuor~ :i esa tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA "I , the undersigned, do thereby certify that all statement made in the require attachments are true and correct, and if found fake/forged, the undersigned will be liable for infliction upon the F.I.R. and lawful punishment as well as black listing."

10. Admittedly, the pet