Manipur High Court
M/S Nezone Pipes & Structures vs The State Of Manipur Through The on 16 August, 2021
Author: Lanusungkum Jamir
Bench: Lanusungkum Jamir
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
(1) WP(C) No. 427 of 2021
M/s Nezone Pipes & Structures, registered
address at Extended EPIP Lower Bralian
Ri-Bhoi District, Byrnihat, Meghalaya-793101
correspondence address at DD Tower, 5th
Floor, G.S.Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati
Assam 791005 through its authorized person
Shri Rajesh Chetri, DGM Marketing, s/o
Gopal Chetri, a resident of House No.24, Nizora
Path, Guwahati, Assam 781018.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the
Commissioner/Secretary, PHED, Government
of Manipur Secretariat Building, Babupara,
Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal,
Manipur 795001.
2. The Joint Secretary (PHE), Government
of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara,
Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, PHED, Government
of Manipur, Khuyathong, PO & PS Imphal,
Imphal West, Manipur 795001.
4. M/s BST Infratech Ltd having its
registered office at 1 No.R.N.Mukherjee Road,
2nd Floor, Kolkata 700001 through its
authorized person Shri Tapan Banerjee, s/o
(L) Mohit Mohan Banerjee, a resident of 34
Sunit Banerjee Road Sodepuri Ghola,
Kolkata 700111.
5. M/s Vishal Pipes Limited, having its
registered office at 32, Nishant Kunji Kohat Enclave
Pitampura, Delhi 110034 through its authorized
person Ms.Vivek Mundhra, a resident of
Ashoka Enclave, Faridabad 121003.
....Respondents
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 2 (2) WP(C) No. 454 of 2021 M/s Nezone Pipes & Structures, registered address at Extended EPIP Lower Bralian Ri-Bhoi District, Byrnihat, Meghalaya-793101 correspondence address at DD Tower, 5th Floor, G.S.Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati Assam 791005 through its authorized person Shri Rajesh Chetri, DGM Marketing, s/o Gopal Chetri, a resident of House No.24, Nizora Path, Guwahati, Assam 781018.
... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner/Secretary, PHED, Government of Manipur Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
2. The Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Manipur, Khuyathong, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur 795001.
4. M/s BST Infratech Ltd having its registered office at 1 No.R.N.Mukherjee Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700001 through its authorized person Shri Tapan Banerjee, s/o (L) Mohit Mohan Banerjee, a resident of 34 Sunit Banerjee Road Sodepuri Ghola, Kolkata 700111.
5. M/s Vishal Pipes Limited, having its registered office at 32, Nishant Kunji Kohat Enclave Pitampura, Delhi 110034 through its authorized person Ms.Vivek Mundhra, a resident of Ashoka Enclave, Faridabad 121003.
....Respondents (3) WP(C) No. 490 of 2021 M/s Nezone Pipes & Structures, registered address at Extended EPIP Lower Bralian Ri-Bhoi District, Byrnihat, Meghalaya-793101 correspondence address at DD Tower, 5th WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 3 Floor, G.S.Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati Assam 791005 through its authorized person Shri Rajesh Chetri, DGM Marketing, s/o Gopal Chetri, a resident of House No.24, Nizora Path, Guwahati, Assam 781018.
... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner/Secretary, PHED, Government of Manipur Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
2. The Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, Imphal West, PO & PS Imphal, Manipur 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Manipur, Khuyathong, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur 795001.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Circle, PHED, Government of Manipur Khoyathong, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur 795001.
5. M/s BST Infratech Ltd having its registered office at 1 No.R.N.Mukherjee Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700001 through its authorized person Shri Tapan Banerjee, s/o (L) Mohit Mohan Banerjee, a resident of 34 Sunit Banerjee Road Sodepuri Ghola, Kolkata 700111.
6. M/s Vishal Pipes Limited, having its registered office at 32, Nishant Kunji Kohat Enclave Pitampura, Delhi 110034 through its authorized person Ms.Vivek Mundhra, a resident of Ashoka Enclave, Faridabad 121003.
....Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the petitioners :: Mr.I.Dening, Advocate
For the respondents:: Mr.N.Kumarjit, Advocate General, Manipur,
Mr.H.S.Paonam, Sr.Advocate,
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV
4
Mr.Pradip Kumar Tarafder, Advocate &
Mr.Rajiv Malik, Advocate
Dates of hearing :: 10.08.2021 & 11.08.2021
Date of judgment/ ::
order
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(C A V)
The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Manipur issued Invitation For Bids vide NIT No.CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 dated 26.03.2021 inviting online rate quotation from reputed manufacturers of G.I Pipe (Class Medium/Heavy) having necessary valid ISI Certificate or BIS license for procurement of GI Pipes, Class Medium/Heavy (Supply, delivery and stacking of GI Pipes) F.O.R- Imphal, Manipur.
Para 7 of the Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021 provided that bids must be submitted online w.e.f. 15.00 Hrs of 26.03.2021 and shall be accepted upto 12.00 Hrs of 21.04.2021 and Technical Bids will be opened at 13.00 Hrs of 21.04.2021 and opening of Financial Bids (for Technically qualified bidders only) will be notified later.
2. The petitioner firm being eligible and qualified submitted its bid on 20.04.2021 under Bid No.4523. Similarly, the respondent No.4, M/s BST Infratech Limited, respondent No.5, M/s Vishal Pipes Limited and Swastik Pipes Limited also submitted their bids against the Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021.
3. On 21.04.2021, the Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum indicating that the Technical Bid for procurement of GI Pipe, class Medium/Heavy, (Supply, delivery and stacking of GI Pipes) F.O.R Imphal, Manipur has been opened by the Tender Opening Committee and is under evaluation. Thereafter, another Office Memorandum WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 5 dated 5.5.2021 was issued by the Chief Engineer (PHED), Government of Manipur stating that consequent upon the evaluation of Technical Bid by the e-tender Opening and Evaluation Committee, the Financial Bid for the technically qualified bidders of the e-tender for "Procurement of GI Pipes, class Medium/Heavy (supply, delivery and stacking) of GI Pipes, F.O.R, Imphal, Manipur" will be opened on 6.5.2021 at 11.30 AM.
4. A letter dated 5.5.2021 was also sent to the petitioner's firm by email informing that the petitioner's bid for the tender has been rejected during Technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason Technically not qualified. The petitioner's firm thereafter wrote a letter dated 6.5.2021 by email to the concerned authority requesting to clarify the specific reason for the rejection of the petitioner's bid for Tender ID:2021_PHED_1337_1 at the earliest. However, the petitioner's firm did not receive any reply to the said request.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.410 of 2021 with the following prayers:
"i. to quash and set aside the Self-generated Email or Official letter dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure A/6) addressed to the petitioner's firm/Tender ID received by the petitioner's firm via e-mail, to do justice;
ii) to direct the respondents/authorities to process, perform and conduct such tender matter as per the instructions, terms and conditions of the Notification/Invitation for Bids dated 26.03.2021 under NIT CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354. In other words, to abide by the terms and conditions of the tender process;
iii) to direct the respondents/authorities to award the work contract as per the applicable terms and conditions of the Notification/Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021 under NIT CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 to do justice;
iv) to call for the relevant files or records which are under the custody of the respondents;
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV
6
v) in the interim to direct the respondents not to proceed
with the tender process in connection with the
Notification/Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021 under NIT CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 and not to give effect to the Self-
generated Email or Official letter dated 05.05.2021 during the pendency of the present writ petitions; Or in case, to stay the execution of work in pursuance to such Notification/Invitation for Bids dated 26.03.2021;
vi) to pass any appropriate order (s) or direction (s) which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case."
6. During pendency of the WP(C) No.410 of 2021, the present petitioner received a letter dated 1.6.2021 from the Joint Secretary, PHE, Government of Manipur informing that the petitioner's bid was rejected as the Auditor's report for the Financial Year 2017-18 and for the Financial Year 2018-19 do not show turnovers separately for the product under consideration for tender and whereas Auditor's report for the Financial Year 2019-2020 shows turnover for the product under consideration as Rs.109.92 crores. Therefore, average turnover for the Financial Year is 36.64 crores.
Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Application being MC (WP(C)) No.113 of 2021 in WP(C) No.410 of 2021 challenging the said letter dated 1.6.2021.
This Court, by an order dated 8.6.2021 dismissed the WP(C) No.410 of 2021 and MC (WP(C)) No.113 of 2021 with the following observations.
" Given the aforesaid sequence of events, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the petitioner firm to file a case afresh, if it is aggrieved by the communication dated 01.06.2021. No doubt, the said communication emanated from an interim order passed in this case but the same gives rise to a fresh cause of action. The pleadings in the writ petition, as they stand presently, do not support a challenge to the said communication and, as such, there is no prayer in the main writ petition relating thereto.
WP(C) No.410 of 2021 and MC (WP(C)) No.113 of 2021 are accordingly dismissed on this short ground. It is left open to the petitioner firm to file a fresh case, if it so chooses, in WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 7 accordance with law and due procedure. It would be open to the petitioner firm to raise all the grounds urged in the present writ petition therein."
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.427 of 2021 challenging the letter dated 1.6.2021 with the following prayers:
"i) to quash and set aside the Official communication dated 01.06.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur (Annexure A/10) to do justice.
ii) to direct the respondents/authorities to process, perform and conduct such tender matter as per the instructions, terms and conditions of the Notification/Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021 under NIT CE/PHE/2)(R)/2021/4354. In other words, to abide by the terms and conditions of the tender process;
iii) to direct the respondents/authorities to award the work contract for those items to which the petitioner's firm was the lowest bidder or to award the work contract as per the applicable terms and conditions of the Notification/Invitation For Bids dated 26.03.2021 under NIT CE/PHE/2)(R)/2021/4354 or to do justice.
iv) to call for the relevant files or records which are under the custody of the respondents."
8. During pendency of the WP(C) No.427 of 2021, the Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 24.05.2021 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur stating that the proposal for procurement of GI Pipes, (class Medium/Heavy) and supply, delivery and stacking of GI Pipes, (F.O.R, Imphal), was placed before the Higher Tender Committee meeting held on 24.05.2021. The proceeding of the HTC was enclosed for taking up further necessary action as per the recommendation of the HTC.
The petitioner, therefore, again filed WP(C) No.454 of 2021 challenging the letter dated 24.05.2021 with the following prayers:
"i) to quash and set aside the Official letter dated 24.05.2021 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 8 and its connected document (s) in connection with the Notification/Invitation for Bids Nit No.CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 dated 26.03.2021;
ii) to direct the concerned respondents to award the work to the petitioner as the petitioner is the lowest bidder in 11 (eleven) items or to re-tender the said Notification/Invitation for Bids NIT No.CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 dated 26.03.2021;
iii) to call for the relevant files or records which are under the custody of the respondents;
iv) to tag the present writ petition with WP(C) No.427 of 2021 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
v) in the interim to stay the execution of work in connection with the NIT.No.CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 dated 26.03.2021 in the interest of justice;
vi) to pass any appropriate order(s) or direction(s) which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case."
9. This Court passed an interim order dated 15.07.2021 in WP(C) No.427 of 2021 along with WP(C) No.454 of 2021 directing that there shall accordingly be stay of all further proceedings, including execution of the awarded contracts, if any, for supply of GI Pipes pursuant to the Tender bearing NIT No.CE/PHE/2P(R)/2021/4354 dated 26.03.2021 until the next date of hearing.
10. Again, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.490 of 2021 on the ground that in MC (WP(C)) No.132 of 2021 and MC (WP(C)) No.133 of 2021 filed by M/s BST Infratech Limited as well as in the affidavit in opposition filed by M/s Vishal Pipes Limited, the petitioner came to learn that two letters both dated 31.05.2021 written by the Superintending Engineer, Planning & Monitoring Circle PHED, Government of Manipur and addressed to the M/s BST Infratech Limited, Kolkata and Vishal Pipes Limited, Delhi conveyed approval of the rates of GI Pipes. Further, in response to the said letters dated 31.05.2021, the successful bidders i.e. M/s BST Infratech Limited and M/s Vishal Pipes Limited have submitted their letter of acceptance both dated WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 9 1.6.2021. The petitioner, therefore, has filed WP(C) No.490 of 2021 assailing the official letters both dated 31.05.2021 and the letter of acceptance (s) dated 1.6.2021 with the following prayers:
"i) to quash and set aside the official letters dated 31.05.2021 addressed to M/s BST Infratech Limited and M/s Vishal Pipes Limited (Annexure A/18 and A/19) written by the Superintending Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Circle, PHED, Government of Manipur.
ii) to quash and set aside the letter of Acceptance dated 01.06.2021 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Public Health Department, Government of Manipur and submitted by the M/s BST Infratech Limited and M/s Vishal Pipes Limited (Annexure A/20 & A/21);
iii) to call for the relevant files or records which are under the custody of the respondents.
iv) to tag the present writ petition with WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and WP(C) No.454 of 2021 which is pending before this Hon'ble Court;
v) in the interim, to stay the official letters dated 31.05.2021 and the Letters of Acceptance dated 01.06.2021 during the pendency of writ petition in the interest of justice;
vi) to pass any appropriate order (s) or direction (s) which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case."
11. As all the 3 (three) writ petitions are interrelated relating to the Invitation of Bids dated 26.03.2021 by which the petitioner's technical bid was rejected and works were awarded to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and WP(C) No.454 of 2021 and who are also respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP(C) No.490 of 2021, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
12. Heard Mr.I.Dening, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Also heard Mr.N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur, for the State of Manipur in all the three writ petitions, Mr.H.S.Paonam, WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 10 learned senior Advocate along with Mr.Pradip Kumar Tarafder, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and 454 of 2021 and respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.490 of 2021, Mr.Rajiv Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and 454 of 2021 and respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.490 of 2021.
13. Mr.I.Dening, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's firm had complied with all the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 inasmuch as they have submitted all the relevant documents provided under Section-II, C 2 of the Bidding documents. He submits that under sub-clause C 2.1, Part-I with regard to Technical Bid a bidder has to upload complete with all technical details as provided under Section-IV.
A certificate, with regard to average turnover, as required under Appendix 4 issued by a Chartered Accountant is to be submitted by the bidder certifying that the average turnover for the last three financial years for the GI Pipes is more than 40 crores. To that effect, the petitioner has submitted Appendix-4 showing Total Turnover and Galvanized Iron Pipes (GI Pipes) turnover of the petitioner's firm for the last three completed financial years from 2017-18 to 2019-20 indicating an average turnover of Rs.110.61 with regard to GI Pipes. Further, the bidder is also required under Section-III of Clause A.1 of the NIT to submit audited financial statements for the last three financial years along with turnover certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant as per Appendix-4. The petitioner has submitted all these relevant documents which are required to determine the eligibility criteria for the bidders including GST report and Income Tax Report for the said relevant three years apart from other required documents. He also submits that the stand of the respondents that the Auditor's report for the financial year 2017- 18 and financial year 2018-19 did not show the turnover separately for the product under consideration of the tender is misconceived inasmuch as there is no such terms and conditions in the bidding document that the bidders WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 11 ought to submit the turnover separately for the product under consideration of the tender for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20.
It is further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the CA Certificate as per the Appendix-4 of the bidding document and Auditor's financial statement for the financial year 2019-20 submitted by the petitioners. The figure reflected in the CA Certificate as per Appendix 4 is based on the Book of Accounts of the petitioner's firm and such figures are also scrutinized as per the relevant provisions of law such as income tax and GST. As the respondents have conveniently relied only on the Auditor's financial statement with regard to financial year, 2019-20 by giving a finding that the Auditor's report for the financial year 2017-18 and financial year 2018-19 did not show the turnover separately for the product under consideration of the tender, the rejection of the bid of the petitioner was illegal without appreciating relevant documents of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner while rejecting the bid of the petitioner and the same deserves to be interfered by this Court.
14. Addressing WP(C) No.454 of 2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to analyze or inspect the documents submitted by the bidders and further allowed their choice of supplier who had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bidding document as responsive bidders. The said action of the respondents is bias, arbitrary, irrational and whimsical. He also submits that the respondents have intentionally and willfully concealed all relevant documents beyond the reach of the petitioner despite all steps being taken by the petitioner to obtain such documents with regard to the NIT dated 26.03.2021. Referring to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.454 of 2021 he submits that the respondent No.4, i.e. M/s BST Infratech Ltd had failed to submit Audited Financial statement for the financial year 2017-18 to 2019-20 thereby violating the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021. Therefore, respondent No.4 should have been declared as a non-responsive bidder.
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 12 However, the official respondents had proceeded by accepting the bid of respondent No.4, which is highly illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Appendix-6 (Performance Certificate) submitted by the respondent No.4, M/s BST Infratec Ltd was also defective as it did not conform to the requirements of the NIT. However, the official respondents instead of rejecting the bid of respondent No.4 had written a letter dated 22.4.2021 to the respondent No.4 to submit the supply order/work order for verification. This very action also demonstrates that the official respondents had clear intention of helping the respondent No.4 as a responsive bidder which is highly illegal.
15. As regards respondent No.5, i.e. M/s Vishal Pipes Ltd, it is submitted that the respondent No.5 has been blacklisted by the concerned authorities of the Zilla Parishad Body, Rural Water Supply Division, Aurangabad. However, respondent No.5 has filed a false affidavit as per Appendix-7 of the bidding documents before the concerned authority. However, the officials have accepted the bid of respondent No.5 as successful bidder which would show connivance of the official respondents with some of the bidders and proceeded to pick their choice of suppliers in violation of the terms and conditions of the bidding documents. As the respondents have failed to act transparently while considering the technical bid of the bidders, the letter dated 24.05.2021 which is impugned in WP(C) No.454 of 2021 requires interference by this Court.
16. Mr.I.Dening, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.490 of 2021 submits that as the official respondents have failed to proceed in terms of of the NIT dated 26.03.2021, the whole proceedings stand vitiated due to manipulative action of the official respondents and, accordingly, the whole proceedings requires to be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to have a reconsideration of the matter and declare the petitioner's firm as a successful bidder. Accordingly, he submits that the official letters both dated 31.05.2021 and acceptance letter of WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 13 respondent Nos.5 and 6, both dated 1.6.2021 be set aside and quashed. He also placed reliance in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 and in a Judgment dated 29.04.2021 of the Gauhati High Court passed in WP(C) No.612 of 2015 : (Bharatiya Shivan JV Vs State of Assam & 4 Ors.
17. Mr.N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur, appearing on behalf of the official respondents in all the three Writ Petitions submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, has launched JAL JEEVAN MISSION (JJM) in 2018-19 for providing "Functional Household Tap Connection (FHTC)" to every household by the year 2024. During the financial year 2019-20, the Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti allocated a sum of Rs.56.41 crores to the State of Manipur out of which a sum of Rs.28.20 crores has been released as first instalment. The State of Manipur through the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur is implementing the scheme and out of the said sum of Rs.28.20 crore released as first instalment an amount of Rs.25 crores has been allocated for purchase/procurement of GI Pipes. Accordingly, the NIT dated 26.03.2021 has been issued consisting of two components i.e. Technical Bid and Financial Bid.
Learned Advocate General submits that Appendix-4 submitted by the petitioner pertains to total turnover and not concerned with the GI Pipes alone which is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021, particularly Sl.No.4 of Clause A.1 under Section-III of the NIT. He also submits that the Auditor's financial statement as submitted by the petitioner's firm which is annexed as Annexure A/12 does not conform to the requirement of the NIT. He submits that for the financial year 2017-18 there is no indication of turnover for GI Pipes, which is contrary to the Appendix 4 submitted by the petitioner. As regards the financial year, 2018- 19 there is also no indication of any turnover with regard to GI Pipes and the same is also contrary to the Appendix-4 submitted by the petitioner. Further, with regard to the financial year, 2019-20, the turnover of GI Pipes for the WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 14 year ending 31.03.2019 is indicated as Rs.1,149,568,350/-. However, on a comparison with the audited financial statement for the year 2018-19 the same does not indicate the turnover of GI Pipes. Accordingly, the Appendix- 4 which is a certificate of the Chartered Accountant submitted by the petitioner's firm was found to be doubtful as the Auditor's report for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20 does not show the turnover separately for the product under consideration of the tender i.e. GI Pipes. The figures indicated in the Appendix-4 submitted by the petitioner's firm were not found anywhere in the documents submitted by the petitioner accept in the Auditor's report of financial year 2019-20. Accordingly, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected inasmuch as it does not conform to the terms and conditions of the NIT.
It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is not supported by its own documents and under such circumstance, the official respondents had to reject the bid of the petitioner. Drawing the attention of this Court to the minutes of the Higher Tender Committee meeting held on 24.05.2021 which is annexed as Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents in WP(C) No.427 of 2021, he submits that with regard to Technical Bid indicated at Para 2 (vi), the reasons for rejecting the bid of the petitioner's firm has been indicated that as the Auditor's report for the financial year 2017-18 and financial year 2018-19 do not show the turnover separately for the product under consideration of the tender whereas the Auditor's report for the financial year 2019-20 shows turnover for the product under consideration as Rs.109.92 crores. Therefore, the average turnover for three years is Rs.36.64 crores. He also submits that in respect of all the other three bidders namely M/s BST Infratech Ltd, Swastik Pipes Ltd and M/s Vishal Pipes Ltd, they had submitted the bid as per the NIT. The minutes would indicate that consideration was done in a very transparent manner without any foul play which was headed by the Chief Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur.
Refuting the allegation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to issuance of letter dated 22.04.2021, learned A.G., WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 15 Manipur submits that the Public Health Engineering Department had issued the letter dated 22.04.2021 in order to clarify the performance certificate submitted by the respondent No.4. Accordingly, respondent No.4 had submitted the supply/work orders to the PHE Department and on perusal of the same it was confirmed that the respondent had the credential of supply for a minimum value of Rs.40 crores only for GI Pipes in one year to any Government Department as required by the NIT dated 26.03.2021. He submits that the official respondents had the source of power to write the letter dated 22.04.2021 in terms of clause D 2.1 of Section-II of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 and therefore the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. He further submits that the work orders which have been issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e. M/s BST Infratech Ltd, Kolkata and M/s Vishal Pipes Ltd, are not challenged in any of the writ petitions and on this ground too, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Further submission has been made that the respondent No.4 has also furnished the Audited financial reports for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20
18. With regard to the allegation that the respondent No.5 is a blacklisted bidder, he submits that the same is not correct inasmuch as the respondents had considered the documents submitted by respondent No.5 and had thereafter found the said respondent to be a responsive bidder. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed. He has also placed reliance in the cases of: (1) Montecarlo Ltd Vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd reported in (2016) 15 SCC 272, (2) Reliance Telecom Ltd & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr reported in (2017) 4 SCC 269 and (3) Meerut Development Authority Vs Association of Management Studies & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171.
19. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in WP(C) Nos.427 and 454 of 2021 and respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.490 of 2021, while endorsing the submission made by the learned WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 16 A.G, Manipur, further submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner's firm at the Technical stage is not disputed. He submits that the email letter addressed to the petitioner's firm indicating that their tender has been rejected during the technical evaluation is not under challenge. He also submits that the submission of the Auditor's financial statement of all the bidders is a requirement under the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021. The audited financial statement of the petitioner's firm with regard to the year 2017-18 to 2019-20 were found to be defective inasmuch as there is no indication of any turnover with regard to GI Pipes. As the petitioner's firm failed to satisfy the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021, the bid of the petitioner's firm was rejected at the technical stage. He also submits that the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 1.6.2021 which is only the reasons given for rejecting his bid by the official respondents. As the petitioner has failed to challenge the basic order rejecting his bid at the technical stage, the writ petition being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed.
20. With regard to WP(C) No.454 of 2021, learned senior counsel submits that no other ground against respondent No.4 has been taken except ground No.L which pertains to non-submission of relevant documents required as per the terms and conditions of the bidding documents. He submits that the respondent No.4 has submitted the audited financial statement for the financial year 2017-18 to 2019-20 while submitting bid and, therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner is without any basis and is making a false statement before this Court. He also submits that the minutes of the HTC meeting held on 24.05.2021 would clearly indicate that the respondent No.4 has submitted the tender documents as per the NIT as indicated in Para-2 (vi) of the said minutes. This clearly indicates that the petitioner's firm is only trying to delay the matter for successful implementation of the NIT dated 26.03.2021. He further submits that as the petitioner's firm has been found to be non-responsive bidder at the technical stage, they have no locus to question the further proceedings with regard to WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 17 the financial bid or final result of the bid as well as the award of work order and acceptance of the work by respondent No.4. As the respondent No.4 was found to be a responsive bidder and having qualified in terms of the conditions made in the NIT dated 26.03.2021, the official respondents had issued orders dated 5.6.2021, 6.6.2021 and 7.6.2021 requesting for procurement of GI Pipes for the purpose of JAL JEEVAN MISSION (JJM) as envisaged by the NIT dated 26.03.2021. In terms of the orders dated 5.6.2021, 6.6.2021 and 7.6.2021, the respondent No.4 has also supplied/shipped the manufactured GI Pipes with the logo provided on the GI Pipes as "PHE GOM" for supply to the different divisions of the PHED, Manipur. The petitioner had overlooked all these steps taken by the official respondents as well as by the respondent No.4 and has approached this Court without challenging any of these orders and in absence of such challenge, the survival of this writ petition does not arise. He submits that the contract is a commercial transaction and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If a decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, the Court would not interfere in exercise of its power under judicial review even if there is procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out.
Lastly, he submits that the respondent No.4 has also submitted his performance certificate as per Appendix-6 indicating that the respondent No.4 had supplied various sizes of pipes amounting to Rs.40.25 crores in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur during the financial year 2020-2021. The respondent No.4 had also submitted Appendix-4 as required by the NIT dated 26.03.2021 and on comparison with the Auditor's financial report for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20, the same was found to be correct and, accordingly, respondent No.4 was declared as responsive bidder. Accordingly, he submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. He also places reliance in the cases of (1) Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr Vs Kolkata Metropolitan Dev Authority & Ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, (2) Central Coalfields Ltd & Anr Vs SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 18 & Ors reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, (3) Tata Cellular Vs Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 (4) AIR India Ltd Vs Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, (5) Jagdish Mandal Vs State of Orissa & Ors reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 (6) Central Coalfields Ltd & Anr Vs SLL-SML (Joint Venture consortium) & Ors reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 and (7) Master Marine Services (P) Ltd Vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd & Anr reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138.
21. Mr.Rajiv Malik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and 454 of 2021 and respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.490 of 2021 submits that the only allegation against respondent No.5 is that the respondent No.5 is a blacklisted bidder and, therefore, the respondent No.5 does not qualify to be considered in the Technical bid. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 was blacklisted by the authorities of Zilla Parishad Body, Rural Water Supply Division, Aurangabad, by letter dated 14.07.2015 for supply of Hand Pump Sets. He also submits that the blacklisting of the respondent No.5 was for a period upto 31.03.2016 only. Further, he submits that the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 require that the bidder should not be blacklisted for participation in any tender for GI Pipe supply. As the respondent No.5 was not blacklisted for supply of GI Pipes, he had participated in the bid and, was found successful. Further, as the blacklisting of the respondent No.5 for supply of hand pump sets was only up to 31.03.2016, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 is a blacklisted bidder and the case of the respondent No.5 should have been rejected is misconceived and misleading.
22. As there is a specific allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had not furnished the audited financial report for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20, this court had directed the learned A.G, Manipur to produce the records. The records have been produced before this Court and this Court has perused the same.
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 19
23. The terms and conditions as contained in the NIT dated 26.03.2021 has been considered by this Court. Clause C.2 of Section-II of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 reads as under:
"C.2 Documents Comprising the Bid
C 2.1 The Bid shall comprise the following:
1) PART-I: TECHNICAL BID
To be uploaded, complete with all technical details along with all other required documents, mentioned in the Bidding Documents/Bidding Forms as specified in Section-IV.
. Covering Letter (Appendix-1)
. Power of Attorney (Appendix-2)
. Details of applicant (Appendix-3)
. Average Turnover Certificate (Appendix-4)
. Evidence of access to or availability of credit/
facilities (Appendix-5)
. Performance Certificate (Appendix-6)
. Non Blacklist Affidavit (Appendix-7)
. Current contract commitment (Appendix-8)
. Declaration by the Manufacturer (Appendix-10)
. Resolution of the firm to participate in the
Bidding (Appendix-11)
. Undertaking regarding validity of Bid for 90 days.
. Scan copy of Tender Fee (PDF)
. Format for submitting Bid-Securing Declaration
(Appendix-12)
. Signed copy by authorised signatory of NIT
document and any other corrigendum issued
by the employer.
II) PART-II: FINANCIAL BID
Financial Bid should contain only the prices, without any condition whatsoever.
(a) Duly filled Schedule of Items (Appendix-9) (Price to be quoted only in the BOQ of the e-tender portal and not in Appendix-9)
(b) Any other documents required in the BDS.
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 20 C.2.2 All duties, taxes, and other levies payable by the Contractor under the Contract, or for any other cause, as of the date 28 days prior to the deadline for submission of bids, shall be included in the rates and prices and the total Bid Prices submitted by the Bidder."
24. The relevant portion of Clause A.1 under Section-III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 are also reproduced hereunder:
"A.1 TECHNICAL CRITERIA Manufacturers should upload the following authenticated documents enclosed in the Technical Terms and non-compliance of the same shall be considered as non-responsive and shall be liable for rejection outright. The manufacturer should have the following eligibility criteria & submit the necessary documents while submitting the tender.
Sl.No. Criteria Documents required
3. The manufacturer Performance Certificate issued
should have credential by an officer not below the rank
of supply for a minimum of Executive Engineer shall be
value of Rs.40.00 Crore submitted as per Appendix-6.
(Rupees forty crore)
only in one year to any
Government
Department during the
last five financial years
from FY 2015-16 to FY
2019-20
4. The manufacturer Audited Financial Statements
should submit the for last 3 financial years along
audited financial with Turnover Certificate issued
statements for the last 3 by Chartered Accountant as per
(three) financial years Appendix-4.
from FY 2017-18 to FY
2019-20 to
demonstrate the
current soundness of
the bidders' financial
position showing a
minimum average
turnover of not less than
Rs.40.00 Crore
(Rupees forty crore) for
the product under
consideration in the
tender
WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV
21
25. Sl.No.6 of Clause A.1 under Section-III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 provides that Appendix-7 should be submitted as per the format stating clearly that on the date of submission of the tender, the applicant is not debarred/delisted/disallowed/having no pending enquiry/blacklisted for participation in any tender for GI Pipe supply by any Government Department/Government Undertaking/Statutory Body/Municipality/Municipal Corporation etc.
26. The main issue revolving around WP(C) No.427 of 2021 is whether the rejection of the bid of the petitioner's firm was arbitrary, whimsical, illegal and discriminatory. As regards this issue, consideration of Appendix-4, Appendix-6 and Sl.No.3 and 4 of Clause A.1 under Section-III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 becomes crucial.
27. A consideration of the Appendix-4 as furnished by the petitioner while submitting his bid would indicate that he has submitted the certificate indicating Total Turnover and the Galvanized Iron Pipes (G.I Pipes) turnover for the last (3) complete financial years. The turnover of GI Pipes (INR Crores) is indicated as 106.94 for the financial year 2017-18. For the financial year 2018-19, it is indicated as 114.96 and for the financial year 2019-20 it is indicated as 109.92. The audited financial reports submitted by the petitioner's firm for the financial year 2017-18 to 2019-2020 clearly indicates that for the year 2017-18 there is no indication of turnover for GI Pipes under Schedule 'I' Sales. Again for the financial year 2018-19 there is no turnover indicated for GI Pipes under Schedule-'H' sales. However, for the financial year 2019-2020 the turnover for GI Pipes under Schedule-'H' Sales is indicated as 1,149,568.350 for the financial year ending 31.03.2019 and for the financial year ending 31.03.2020 it is indicated as 1,099,164.183.
At this stage, it would be pertinent to consider the impugned letter dated 1.6.2021 written by the Joint Secretary, PHED, Government of Manipur and addressed to the petitioner's firm wherein the reason for WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 22 rejecting the case of the petitioner's firm is given and the same reads as under:
" The Auditor's reports for the FY 2017-18 and FY 18-19 do not show turnover separately for the product under consideration of the Tender and whereas the Auditor's report for FY 2019-20 shows the turnover from the produce under consideration as Rs.109.92 crore. Therefore, Average turnovers for three years is Rs.36.64 crore."
On a consideration of the reasons given as well as comparison of the audited financial report for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20 as well as Appendix-4 submitted by the petitioner's firm in the bid documents, it can be clearly assumed that the reasons given for rejecting the petitioner's firm is on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner while submitting the tender bid.
28. The other allegation made by the petitioner's firm that the respondent No.4 did not submit audited financial report for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20 is also belied by the records submitted by the learned A.G, Manipur inasmuch as the respondent No.4 has submitted the audited financial report for the period under consideration wherein the turnover for GI Pipes is clearly indicated in the audited financial reports in respect of GI Pipes for the financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20.
29. The appendix-6 submitted by the respondent No.4 as provided under Sl.3 of Clause A.1 under Section III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 has also been considered by this Court. Therein, the Superintending Engineer, Urban Circle PWD, Government of Manipur has certified that the respondent No.4 firm had submitted various sizes of pipes ranging from 15 mm to 150 mm dia amounting to Rs.40.25 crores in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur during the financial year 2020-21. There is no doubt that in the said Appendix-6 submitted by the respondent No.4, the work order and dates were not indicated as required under Appendix-6 of the NIT dated 26.03.2021. It was in this circumstance that the WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 23 official respondents had invoked Clause D 2.1 of Section-II seeking for clarification with regard to Appendix-6 by issuing the letter dated 22.04.2021 addressed to the respondent No.4 stating that it is felt necessary to check the supply order/work order copies as a supporting document of the performance certificate submitted by respondent No.4 in the form of Appendix-6. The said documents were also required to be submitted within two days from the date of issue of the letter without fail.
In response, the respondent No.4 by letter dated 23.04.2021 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Manipur forwarded self-attested copies of 22 numbers of supply orders for GI Pipes for various consignees as a supporting documents for the performance certificate. The covering letter dated 23.04.2021 along with work orders are annexed as Annexures R/3 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.454 of 2021. Under the circumstances, this Court is unable to find any fault with the official respondents for issuance of the letter dated 22.04.2021 to the respondent No.4 inasmuch as the official respondents had the source of power for issuing the letter dated 22.04.2021 under the NIT dated 26.03.2021.
30. The allegation that the respondent No.5 is a blacklisted bidder and, therefore, his bid should have been rejected in the Technical bid has also been considered by this Court.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.454 of 2021, it is clearly shown at Annexure-9 that the respondent No.5 was blacklisted for supply of hand pump sets up to 31.03.2016 by the letter dated 14.07.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed, Rural Water Supply Division. This would clearly indicate that the blacklisting of respondent No.5 was for supply of hand pump sets and that too only up to 31.03.2016. Sl.No.6 of clause A.1 under Section-III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 clearly indicate that Appendix-7 should be submitted in the format indicating that on the date of submission of the tender the applicant is not debarred or delisted/ disallowed/having no pending inquiry/ blacklisted for WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 24 participation in any tender for GI Pipes by any Government Department/ Government undertaking/Statutory Body/Municipality/ Municipal Corporation etc. The respondent No.5 was blacklisted only for supply of hand pump sets that too upto a period of 31.03.2016 only. Sl.No.6 of Clause A.1 of Section- III of the NIT dated 26.03.2021 does not apply to the respondent No.5 and, accordingly the allegation of the petitioner's firm fails.
31. A discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for the purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. It is trite that this Court by way of judicial review cannot examine the details of terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State.
32. In the case of Tata Cellular Vs Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is the realm of contract.
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 25 (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased unbudgeted expenditure."
33. Again in the case of Master Marine Services (P) Ltc Vs Metcalfe & Hodkinson (P) Ltd & Anr reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"15. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd V Cochin International Airport Ltd (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere."
34. In the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs Association of Management Studies & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
"39. The law has been succinctly stated by Wade in his treatise, Administrative Law:
" The powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to allow whom he likes to use his land, to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things unless it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 26 of public interest. So a city council acted unlawfully when it refused unreasonably to let a local rugby football club use the city's sports ground, though a private owner could of course have refused with impunity. Nor may a local authority arbitrarily release debtors, and if it evicts tenants, even though in accordance with a contract, it must act reasonably and 'within the limits of fair dealing'. The whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good.
40. There is no difficulty to hold that the authorities owe a duty to act fairly but it is equally well settled in judicial review, the court is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but with the manner in which the decision is taken or the order is made. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the authority deciding the matter.
41. The distinction between appellate power and a judicial review is well known but needs reiteration. By way of judicial review, the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basic in nature and after an objective consideration of different options available taking into account the interest of the State and the public, then the Court cannot act as an appellate court by substituting its opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract. But at the same time the courts can certainly examine whether the "decision-making process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (See Sterling Computers Ltd V M&N Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445".
35. Further in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd & Anr Vs SLL- SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority of India : (1979) 3 SCC 489 the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular Vs Union of India:
(1994) 6 SCC 651 there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision "that no responsible WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV 27 authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal V State of Orissa : (2007) 14 SCC 517 followed in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd v.
State of Karnataka: (2012) 8 SCC 216."
36. This Court has minutely considered the minutes of the Higher Tender Committee meeting held on 24.05.2021. On a perusal of the same, this Court does not find the process adopted or the decision taken by the Higher Tender Committee as mala fide or intended to favour someone or the same to be arbitrary and irrational.
37. This Court has also considered the citations relied upon by the petitioners counsel, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand, the same does not assist the petitioner.
38. In the facts and circumstances of what has been discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the WP(C) No.427 of 2021 and the same is accordingly dismissed.
39. WP(C) Nos.454 of 2021 and WP(C) No.490 of 2021 relates to matters challenging the action of the respondents consequent to the disqualification of the petitioner's firm in the technical bid. As WP(C) No.427 of 2021 has been dismissed, consequently WP(C) No.454 of 2021 and WP(C) No.490 are also dismissed.
The interim order dated 15.07.2021 along with all other consequential orders extending the interim order stands vacated.
No costs.
Return the records to the learned A.G, Manipur.
JUDGE Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR FR/NFR RAJKUMA PRIYOJIT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=High court of manipur, ou=HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR, pseudonym=f4c2dc1e6523287d71914 Priyojit R PRIYOJIT 74520fdea810aea3dbd389266738272 7c0bc7feaada, postalCode=795002, st=MANIPUR, serialNumber=4b3fb011d5ab7a48771 SINGH e2ed5a0b5b95e75ce0a58008f265840 361e8df078740f, cn=RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2021.08.16 13:39:48 +05'30' WP(C) NOS.427 OF 2021 AND ORS (NEZONE) CAV