Karnataka High Court
Konark Infrastructure Ltd vs National Highway Authority Of India on 20 October, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA AT BANGALORE
omen THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2o:_d_i
BEFORE :
THE HON'B§_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTAz~a1,§jc-zoUAo:A._R V
wan PETIHQN Ng.3Q§_g4[2g;g ' {c;M_-17EN.')_" =
Bggwggn :
Konark Infrastructure Ltd., '
A hmited company registered unde.r_'~.. '
The India Companies Act,'1~956,«" A
Having its registered office-at' _
Ground Floor, Sapna Taikies,
Sapna Garden, - '
Ulhasnagar-421 _,
Represented by _ ' ".";'Petitioner
( By Sri V/'g\s.hoI'<"~i:taraInaha.IE'i,.Senio.r,.Counsel
for Sri Manmo~ha.n _P;1!\1., .A'd.\_/ocate )
And :
mama:
_;i.. Nationvair.High\}va.yVAuttiority of India,
._ Regions-rf., Office N H"'A'1,
. , Mv§.l.es, S.rNo,'i3,,
_ Nag'asa'rzdra,t' M."S.Ramaiah Encfave,
"Ba'n.gatVore~.Tu'rj1'kur Road, NH--4,
Banga|ore4:'3«ir30 O73,
_ Represeynted' by its
<._Chief General Manager.
r._2';s"Th:e"'t_*nion of India,
_ "Ministry of Road, Transport
' 8:} Highways,
New Delhi,
Represented by its Secretary. .. Respondents
( By Smt.Sinchana, Advocate for S.i<alyan Basavaraj, Assistant Solicitor General, For R-2 and Smt.Shilpa Sinha, Advocate For Singhania & Partners, for R-1 ) This Writ Petition is filed unde{rmi\rt'ic1.es_ 2r:2a[&_22'7Vfof* the Constitution of India praying to direc't"tl'ae lR1"to'consid{e1r[ the bid of the petitioner on merits submitted oyn.."_.'5.A8.2O1'*O in respect of the bids for appoint.mentv~ of. co.ntr.a'cto.r~' for = ' collection of toll at approved rat'es'"near Koglnoi-i village for Maharashtra/Karnataka border _t_of~.BeVigaum"sectidn from KN.537.00 to KM. 592.24 "Of._l\!.H';No.AG4.. This Writ Petition having: reserved for orders on 4"' October 2Q.1G;--prorioéu.nced the same on 20"' October 2010. . ' The':__1S'._ issued a Notification inviting applications for lthe"ap'point:rr_:.e4nt of contractors for collection of toll_§atii.the na-p_prove:r;l rates near Kognoli village of in'Vivlasharalslétvra/i<a'rnataka border in respect of Belgaum section onl"'i\la'ti.ona'i No.4. The petitioner submitted its bid in a sp'i--ralv'«.'boi;'nd form. Apprehending that the petitioner's wil__l not be considered by the 15' respondent on the that the bid is not in the hard bound form, this writ it lipe-titilon is filed for the following reliefs :
I/S " (i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1"
respondent to consider the bid of the petition_e.rV_i'-.._d~. on merits submitted on 6.8.2010 in respeetef-'__'._j' the bids for appointment of contractor" for: collection of toll at approved rates near" V village for Maharashtra/Karnlataigai j.b"ord:e_r"-..tow-..___H Belgaum section from Kn. 37.00 :t'QA.KM..5f?2.24i it . ofN.H.No.O-4." A' T' "
2. Sri Ashok HE:;i'aiflah€§il.|'i',.:_tieaggrnléd Se'i;ii(A)l'J Counsel appearing on behalf of the the spiral binding is also to:=._a and hence the 15* respondent i.i§eii'e.id'ered the bid of the petitionergionlvnieritsgfthat.:V'n'ofi'~fiii_%ig"of bid in a hard bound form cannot a or refuse to consider the bid of the petitlionerion rlnerits; and that the 15' respondent 1-'.':ca'n.n&ot'~-d:ec--i'ineto conésider the bid of the petitioner on ii'/Per te'chiiii;al iig:r'o.p_rid,f~especially when the same does not pertain ' *»to the experience of the petitioner. Sum and ~.l.l'.j':v.-isobstance' ofthe argument of the learned Senior Counsel is theifcondition relating to filing of tender application in . if"-~--harVd__5bound form is not an essentiai condition and that M therefore the lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner in filing tender appiication in spiral bound form _4may[i~be condoned.
Relying upon the document""at'_ produced by respondent No.1 a|onga7yvi:th_A.thef"s-tatennenboff'~_ objections, it is contended by the..,',:'p'etitionerfs *Senio'rrCouVnseJ V that the Tender Committe-e_.itse1.f"'was':of"~t.he opin'ion"V§that the condition found in tenderfféfappiicatifon to filing of the same in hard bound "essential condition and consequen't'i'y,..g;t.né:__ has requested the Head Qua'rtersV..:':»tv(:)irigke in the matter by considering. the of such shortcomings in respect of thefbidvs throughout the country. According to the ._j"petitio'ner,;_t.he~v..amountquoted by the petitioner is higher than by H-1 tenderer who is now being awardehfd the and therefore, the tender of the petitioner V7«.,__sh_ouid not: be rejected on hyper technicai ground, .'__c'onseVq'u~«ent upon which, the 15' respondent may lose certain of money. He further relied upon the document at V2 _ 5 _ Annexure--' R-4' -- the Circular dated 11"' May 2005 issued by the 15' respondent to the effect that "hard bound" irijiplies such binding between two covers through stitchinfg._f'~~o_r otherwise, whereby it may not be possible paper without disturbing the docum_ent.__' Ba_se"d""oiéiv»t'he,'_'_said_V ff"
document, learned counsel for the"a'pet_'itioner. spirai binding is equivalent to iia_rd..,bound.: . The writ Detiton is ofifioééd |e'arn_ed.>§ counsel appearing on behalf of b'y,,fjnte»."_alia contending that the condition_:'re|ating' tender in hard bound forVmmi's'ari.essentiai»condit.i'o'n;V the non-filing of tender in hard bound. form"iinv,i.t'es_:rajectioii of the tender, inasmuch as, such tend'erV"is.,t'rea'ted'~"as non--responsive tender. She "VV're,lies-',,__ii'po-n the co'nd"itio'ns of tender notification, especially and 16 of the Tender Notification in su pp of uments.
ii "¢Thus, having regard to the rival contentions '_'_}me_ntio'ned supra, the main question to be determined in this T -r_,:'rria'tter is as to whether the condition relating to submission M of tender in hard bound form is an essential condition or not. The incidental question which arises for consideration'.i.s=-asto whether the petitioner has complied with the or not.
4. At the outset it is to be me'ntio.ne'd here 'itself the petitioner herein had filed tender in..jC-}_ujVa:ra't"S'tate it for collection of toll at a,----particis-l'ar.."place_. Thesarivd tender was also in a spiral bound'For'm'.i.,.iConset1u.ently, the Tender Accepting Ai,ithority:;'rajected"the said["tende:rVV'of the petitioner on the ground 'thtatyth-e7__tenci«er'-submitted by the petitioner is not in the"'h'aVrd~ Theuvwpletitioner approached the Division Bench. of of Gujarat by filing Spl.Civil Application No-.1V_2285/20_1VG"."V The said application was ;j"d§.g_miss_eid 29.9.iO1"G';"holding that the stipulation and the submission of the bid documents in the is vital, essential and non--derogable vi"--«__,'i'rrespective't.of financial bid or offer made by any of the Thus, the very question involved in this writ petition ..._'w'asV'i:onsidered and decided by the Division Bench of Gujarat l/i High Court against the petitioner wherein the petitioner himself was the applicant.
5. The bid document contains various'ifcia'uses;_A Clause--3 of the bid documentfldeals?._wi"th:_"l«.t§3st:V"Moti responsiveness. One of the condition._t:o--,_hold te'nd't=42\g./;/i§'~.. responsive is that ail the page'sc:"shouid "-be"'ni'.i=m«Vb.gred and it signed, sealed and hard iboggundvrl'an'dV{inVa"rked asV'sti';jVulated in Clause--1O of the bid of the bid document makes'::.i§V1'~cleaVrHgth.at bid to be submitted with ali pages duly numbered""ar'id.d':V:sigé:ne-dc of the bid document further rriiaké-5 it of the details stipulated in Clause--3 is"fuifivi.led,,l'the bid shall be treated as non- "'~r.espci'ns~ive:an_d shaii'b--e«*rejected. Thus, if Clauses-3, 10 and vldofithe:_'te'r'id:er..document are read together, it is amply clear that th'er1'jsu:bmission of technical bid in hard bound form absoiuteiy necessary and the same is an essential conddition. Added to it, Clause~16 of the bid document ____"'i"urti'1er makes it clear that the contents of the technical bid l~/5 shall be Cl'0SS*Ch€Ck€d to establish the responsivenesspf the bid as per Clauses--3 and 12 and that the bids which .rne:et_:t'he criteria for responsiveness shall only be evaluate-J7.furth1e*r.fo~--r,' l- the technical and financial bid.
6. By reading ail the a4forementio.r"ied" "cla'us'esV'aV homogeneously, one would definirt.ei"y c0rne.t.o"ith-e 'conclusion that filing of the techn.iical__ is an essential condition and if not complied with, the bid W0lJF'Q'::,b§§~. and is to be rejected. Thelwllllclocuments to be in the hard bou'nd" 'u_s't"ri'cv:t compliance of that requirement : has inasmuch as, it obviates thexpossibiglwitylloilany tampering or replacement of 'pa_per.;:,..'3":In.uspilral bolundtender document, the pages can be llrepiaceidg 0--r:_"ad'd,ed..etc., easiiy. In order to overcome the tamlpering ..'replac:en":ent of papers, the concerned it-.._'__authority~.hash imposed the aforementioned condition of of technical bid in hard bound form. Thus, the ___"saidV§condition is an essential condition. lo/'
7. As aforementioned, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitio4n.eiri=,yyl_:'by relying upon the document at Annexure--' R~4' _ 2005 (Le, the clarification issued respo'r'ident'"=lSio._1}yif contends that the "spiral bound", alisioi' f'ul_fil-lbs' la'-'alf-..__ti=:e_i« requirements of "hard bound" alnd.._Vther'e-fowre, the"res.pondenit should have treated the ten_d_e':i=..:_'of__v the «.:pe-titifoner as responsive. The said sVu"briiiss'iVons.:_y'clalrinoti"be accepted. By Annexure~' R-4', th'-ev'.respond.entVv'Nyo,_1'&'hv_als:'*.clarified that the hard bound covers through stitching not be possible to replace any._pape~r,*iv_ithoyu«tl_é:dvi.st:irbing the document. As the tender is su'brn1iitted~ by.'ti1.e'"peti.tioner is in a spiral bound, any paper._§slubmitted' the petitioner may be replaced without in"~._disturbinfil:ti1e"'document. Thus, there is every likelihood of su::h'tend'er_~v_b_eilVng"tampered.
8: 'The respondents have adopted a uniform formula all the country by imposing the condition that the V.,._'jtechnical tender should in the hard bound form. It is In/> -10- relevant to note here itself that the petitioner hadgfiled tender for collecting toll at Hattargi toll plaza ofgN.ationai Highway No.4 in hard bound form. The said was treated as responsive. The ten_de.r,_o4f the"p'eti'tVion'er'_was it accepted as he was the highest b.iAddjeri~';as"~is'*clealrifroihig document at annexure-' R-5'. '!'h'u~s., it is- clear lt.ha't;_'v»'-heriever ' the tenderers have filed'. tendeyrs:V"iA'n:._riard form, such tenders were treated as.zr'esp'o.ns'i'v'e'"and"are opened and wherever such tenders form, they were treated_as,u India. Thus, there ca allegation of mala fides against the otherwise, this Court does not find -.ma'ia"fidet"firitention on the part of the respontjents inwrejectingvnthe tender of the petitioner. It is to note that not only the tender of the petE.tio'neAr"is"r.ejec'te"d, but aiso the tender of another tenderer viz., M;fs.S.ouve"nir Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd., is also rejected the grlouhnd that M/s.Souvenir Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd, 4'_'aiso_V'did"'not submit its tender application in the hard bound it it form.
V'
--£1--
9. Sri Ashok Harnahaili, by relying upon sub~cIause (3) of Ciause-16 of the bid document submitted that ther}:{.~«..i_i's-_a scope for correction of the errors. The said co,rit-ent§g'5._,aJ,so,' _ cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, th_esa_id su'b¥c'iaij'se"'merei'yV it"
mentions that any arithrneticai errors the authority. In the mattyer, onirvhiand, no = L' arithmetical error which needs to___he»vco'rrected;«
10. In View of the a'l)o.\'/le, Co_u'rtjVd'»o_es not find any justification to interfere theVC'tender_"-process, inasmuch as, the tender cifi Vfirigtitiy treated as non- responsiye'a'ind. is rightly rejected.
Hence,-nipetition"".fa§.ls"'---.,and accordingiy, the same is dismisgsed, sd/§__ Judge