Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Sar Technology And Ors vs State (Food And Civil Suppl)Anr on 2 November, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15724/2012 M/s. Natural Software Private Ltd. & Anr. vs. State & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15725/2012 M/s. SAR Technology & Ors. vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 02/11/2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Digvijay Singh for the petitioner.
Shri Krishna Verma, Addl. Govt. Counsel for State.
Shri Rajeev Surana for respondent no.3.
Shri Anoop Dhand for respondent no5.
****** These writ petitions seek to challenge the award of contract to respondents nos.3 to 5 for digitization of beneficiary database for PDS, preparation of Computerized Ration Cards and associated reports for the process of Ration Card Campaign-2012.
Shri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent nos.1 & 2 floated tenders in two tier system, where interested parties were to submit technical bids as well as financial bids. Financial bids were to be opened only if they qualified the technical bid. Respondents No.3 to 5 were not eligible for the technical bid and therefore they could not have been declared qualified as per requirement of clause 9.1B of e-tender document. It is contended that though respondents No.3 to 5 did not have any experience as per requirement of clause 6.3 of the e-tender document of executing the photo identity card projects or bilingual data entry in Hindi and English but they have been awarded work in preference to the petitioners. It is contended that respondent No.3-M/s.Gujarat Infotech Limited had experience of only English and Gujarati and not of Hindi as per requirement of clause 6.3 of e-tender document. Respondent No.4-M/s.Umang Biotech did not submit verified documents as per requirement of clause 6.1 of e-tender document and respondent No.5-M/s.Deepika Job Work and Computer Center did not have work experience of preparing Photo ID Cards. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the various documents. It is contended that official respondents have issued the work order to three of them for each one District but before that they should be refrained from giving any work order for other Districts.
It is contended that the Purchase Committee presided by the Additional Food Commissioner convened the meeting on 8.8.2012 in which number of suggestions were received from the intending tenderers. The proceedings of the Committee are placed on record at Annexure-R/1/1. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at Item no.5, a suggestion was received that in clause 6.3 of the tender document, instead words 'English' and 'Hindi' and 'English', words `any other Indian language' be included, but the committee rejected the suggestion holding that no amendment in the tender document was required. Similarly, another suggestion was made that in clause 6.3 of the tender document with Photo based Identity/admit Cards of bilingual data entry, photo voters list should also be included. It indicates that bilingual entries would be necessary, which means that the single document should contain the entry in two languages namely; English and Hindi. The respondent no.3-M/s. Gujarat Infotech Ltd. with its reply has not placed any single document indicating its experience of Hindi. All the documents that were placed on record contains print in Gujarati language, therefore, they should be held ineligible and disqualified to be awarded work. Similarly, respondent no.5 also does not have any experience of photo based identity/admit cards of bilingual data entry. What it has produced with reply is the mark sheets of middle school level and the bills of PHED Department, which cannot be considered as akin to photo based identity/admit cards of bilingual data data entry for any government or university or PSU. Learned counsel therefore submitted that action of the respondents in awarding work contract to the private respondents should be declared as arbitrary and illegal and fresh tender process should be directed by this Court.
Shri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel also referred to the document Annexure-R/5/8 at Item no.5 to argue that it was conveyed to respondent no.5 that the ledger accounts and misc. work will be got done on bimonthly basis. Bills will be prepared in Hindi package only. Respondent no.5 has produced the documents where bilingual entry both Hindi and English have been made, which is evident from document R/5/15, R/5/16 and R/5/17 and Annexure-R/5/9 from page 199 to 204.
Shri Krishna Verma, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submits that the respondents have submitted the documents in proof of having executed the project for which the tenders were invited and being found technically qualified, they succeeded in the financial bid and accordingly the Letter of Intent was issued to them, followed by execution of MOU. They have to complete the task within the time frame. It is therefore prayed that the writ petitions being misconceived and lacking merits, deserves to be dismissed.
Shri Rajeev Surana, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed the writ petition and submits that work of respondent no.3 is of highest quality as a result of which both Gujarat Government as well as Maharashtra Government have time and again issued work orders pertaining to photo identity cards, electoral photo rolls and computerized ration cards, which have been successfully completed, therefore, it has complete experience in bilingual data entry work and various project of Dev Nagari and English. It is submitted that petitioners have not objected at the time of technical bid, however, when the financial bid of respondent no.3 was accepted, first time they raised the objection on frivolous grounds. The respondent no.3 has have made huge investments till now and moreover the work is of public importance, which should not be delayed. It is submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable as there is itself a provision in clause no.14 of e-tender pertaining to Arbitration, therefore, both the writ petitions should be dismissed as not maintainable at the outset.
Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has opposed the writ petition and submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable at the threshold as the petitioners have the alternative remedy of approaching the Arbitrator under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, of which reference has been made in clause-14 of the e-tender. It is submitted that petitioner-M/s. Natural Software Pvt. Ltd. has no locus to file the writ petition as it has not participated in the e-tender for district Sikar, for which respondent no.5 has applied. It is further submitted that the sole allegation of the petitioners is that respondent no.5 has not done any project in Hindi and English, however, this is factually incorrect. The respondent no.5 is, in fact, doing the work of preparing the water bills of PHED in Hindi and English, the proof of which has been submitted at Annexure-R/5/9 to R/5/13. It is therefore prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Perusal of clause 6.3 of the tender document indicates that the bilingual data entry in `Hindi' and `English' is inserted for photo based identity/admit cards and this is a separate item because in that clause number of items are included. What it provides is that tenderer should have executed Election Photo ID Card or Electoral Photo rolls or Computerized Ration Card project or Photo based Identity/admit Cards of bilingual data entry (Hindi and English) for any government (central/state) or University or Public Sector Undertaking or else where but to be verified at the cost of tenderer and the cost of project executed should be at least Rs.10 lac cumulative during last three financial years. Therefore, for other items what the respondents have clarified may be valid because in the tender document in caption introduction, it is clearly mentioned that duly filled in forms would be made available to the successful Tenderer(s) for digitization which would include alphanumeric data entry in Devnagari and English, capturing of image and specimen signature of the applicant as per attached sample application form using a web application and preparation of Computer generated Ration Cards and other associated reports. In clause 3.2 this has further been clarified that Devnagari of UNICODE-Mangal (or other desired UNICODE complaint) font and English. It has been amply cleared by the respondents that UNICODE-Mangal and UNICODE complaint are the softwares of fonts of Devnagari and English, which support 9 different languages whereas the script Devnagari can be used and this admits of also Marathi and Gujarati. The respondent nos.3 as from the document that it has produced has shown the work experience of Devnagari specially voters list of State of Maharashtra, where some of the papers also contains number of words in Hindi as evident from pages 309 to 315.
The argument on the basis of entries of Item nos.6 and 7 of the minutes of the Purchase Committee held on 8.8.2012 are not convincing in any way. As far as the decision of the Committee to discard the suggestion that any other Indian language should be included with English, suffice it to say that any other Indian language would have been too wide as compared to Devnagari as it might even admit languages like Telgu, Tamil, Malyalam etc., but where Devnagari is used as script, it does not rule out the language like Marathi and Gujarati which are supported by softwares UNICODE-Mangal and UNICODE-complaint. Regarding Item no.7, the same rather strengthens the case of the respondents because thereby the Purchase Committee accepted the suggestion that even the photo voters list may be acceptable in the scope of the work.
Analysis of the arguments thus clearly show that respondent no.3 to 5 substantially met the requirements of the tender document and petitioners have not been able to point out any such irregularity as may warrant interference by this Court at the stage when already contract has been awarded to them, work order issued and work commenced.
I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The stay applications also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/153-1547 All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed.
(Ravi Sharma,P.A.