Orissa High Court
M/S. Konark Ayurvedic Pharmacy vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 March, 2021
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4205 of 2021
M/s. Konark Ayurvedic Pharmacy, .... Petitioner
Cuttack
Mr. K. Badhei, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, A.G.A.
for the State-Opposite Parties
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 24.03.2021 05. I.A. No.5035 of 2021
1. By this application, the Petitioner has prayed to advance the date of hearing of the present writ petition.
2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the date of final hearing is advanced and the writ petition is taken up today itself.
W.P.(C) No.4205 of 20211. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset states that the Petitioner does not need to file any rejoinder and he is willing to argue the petition on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.
2. The Petitioner has challenged rejection of his bid submitted pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Directorate of AYUSH // 2 // for procurement of the Ayurvedic drugs specifying the last date of submission of tender as 16th April 2019, by 5 pm.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, it is stated that prior to issuance of the notification inviting tender, a pre-bid meeting was held on 13th March 2019, at 11.30am. The pre- bid clarifications/amendments were published in the official website of Directorate of AYUSH on 29th March, 2019.
4. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit, and not denied by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner was one of the persons, who signed the attendance sheet for the pre-bid meeting in which it was made clear that the bidders had to submit the GST certificate relating to the year 2017-18. According to Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, this aspect was comprehensively discussed in the pre-bid meeting.
5. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender, 24 bidders including the Petitoner submitted their tenders. There were shortcomings noticed in 17 of those bids. The bids of 7 bidders were found viable/ technically qualified. They were asked to participate in the financial bid opening on 14th January 2020, at 3.30pm. The reason why the Petitioner's bid was rejected was that he had not filed the requisite GST return. According to the Petitioner, this was an inessential condition and relying on the decision of this Court in Hemogenomics Private Limited v. State of Odisha and others 2017 (Supp.-1) OLR 966, it is contended that non-compliance with an inessential condition cannot form the basis of rejection of a bid.
Page 2 of 4// 3 //
6. It is not possible for the Court to conclude that the filing of the GST return is an inessential condition. The very fact which was discussed in the pre-bid meeting underscores that this cannot be brushed aside as an inessential condition. In fact in the publication of the pre-bid amendments/clarifications on the website of Directorate of AYUSH, it is clearly mentioned that "the bidders have to submit copy of the GST registration and return for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 (upto 3rd quarter) (in the technical bid of the tender)". Consequently, the Court rejects the plea of the Petitioner that submission of the GST return was an inessential condition.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner then argues that in certain other contracts, the time to comply with the shortcomings was extended for all the bidders. The fact remains that as far as the present contract is concerned, there was no such extension of time granted to any of the other bidders for rectifying the defects. It is only those seven bidders who found to be technically qualified who were allowed to participate in the financial bid which opened on 14th January, 2020. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot complain of any discrimination in this regard.
8. Lastly, it is submitted that there was a delay in communicating to the Petitioner the fact of rejection of his technical bid.
9. In the considered view of the Court, this would not make any difference since in any event the Petitioner did not qualify to participate in the financial bid. It appears that prior to the opening of the financial bid on 14th January 2020, an intimation was indeed Page 3 of 4 // 4 // sent to the Petitioner informing him of the rejection of his technical bid.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court does not find any ground for interference in the present petition.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge S.K. Guin Page 4 of 4