Gujarat High Court
Kiran Corporation - A Proprietary Firm vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 26 July, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/17207/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17207 of 2016
==========================================================
KIRAN CORPORATION - A PROPRIETARY FIRM....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR NIRAL R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SANJAY A MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 26/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Petitioner had participated in the tender process for supplying the sports equipments. The record would show that the petitioner and the three other agencies cleared the technical bid stage. According to the governmentthe buyer, the four agencies had made their presentation before a committee constituted for such purpose. Only two of these agencies which do not include the petitioner, secured the minimum qualifying marks during such presentation. According to the government, financial bids of only these two agencies were opened, evaluated and contracts were awarded to Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 21:53:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/17207/2016 ORDER the lowest bidder.
2. The petitioner however strongly disputes this stand of the government. From the audit trail viewer filed by the respondent no.2 along with an affidavit dated 04.07.2017, counsel for the petitioner would attempt to demonstrate that the financial bids of all four technically qualified bidders were opened and only after that the presentations were allowed. The petitioner as well as North Gujarat Sports had quoted lower rates than the other two bidders. The petitioner and North Gujarat Sports were both knocked out at the presentation stage by giving them marks less than the minimum qualifying marks. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this entire process was vitiated since the presentations took place after opening the financial bids. He would further point out that the financial bids of North Gujarat Sports are available on the website. According to him if North Gujarat Sports was disqualified at the presentation stage, there was no question of the financial bid of this bidder being opened. Such financial bid therefore could not have been in public domain.
Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 21:53:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/17207/2016 ORDER
3. Learned AGP however would submit that the presentations were completed by 17:30 on 03.08.2016 and the financial bids were opened on 17:32 on the same day. He submitted that the bid evaluating stage completed at 15:10 did not involve opening of the financial bids.
4. In our opinion, the entire issue would revolve around the question whether the financial bids were opened before the technically successful bidders were allowed to make their representations. What exactly happened at 15:10:16 on 03.08.2016 during bid evaluating, is therefore of great importance. In the context of this question the fact of financial bid of North Gujarat Sports being available on the website would also assume significance.
5. Respondent no.5(N)Code Solutions, the agency which had provided the portal to the Government for this bid shall file affidavit on above aspects of the matter. Stand over to 02.08.2017.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 21:53:45 IST 2017 C/SCA/17207/2016 ORDER (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) ANKIT Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 21:53:45 IST 2017