Allahabad High Court
M/S Kineco Ltd. Thru Auth. Sign. ... vs U.O.I. Thru Chair.& Ex-Officio Prin. ... on 20 September, 2019
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 26008 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Kineco Ltd. Thru Auth. Sign. Prashant Baburao Naik Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru Chair.& Ex-Officio Prin. Secy.Railway Board &Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv P. Shukla Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Subodh Kantak, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Amaey Kuladhar and Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent No. 3/Modern Coach FActory, Raebareli, U.P. published a tender through its facility called the Indian Railways E Procurement System (hereinafter refrerred to as the 'IREPS) for the supply of Furnishing Material and Complete Mechanical and Electrical Furnishing Activity of Lwaccn (Humsafar) Coaches for the supply quantity of 200 nos.
Thereafter, the petitioner completed the payment formalities by claiming exemption of being a Small Enterprise (MSEs) in the IREPS portal using the dropdown menu by uploading the required documents as per the cluases 4.1 and 6.1 (b) read with Clause 13.4(i) of the tender document.
The petitioner company completed the online formalities on the IREPS portal and submitted/uploaded its bid documents along with the earnest money deposit exemption. Thereafter the list of tender participants, Techno-Commercial Tabulation was published on the IREPS portal. the said Techno-Commercial Tabulation mentioned the names of respondent Nos. 4,5,6 & 7 along with the name of the petitioner and other tender participants.
Thereafter, on 07.09.2019, the petitioner company received an auto-generated email from the respondents mentioning the status of the technical suitability of the petitioner's bid as "Not Eligible for Any Order". Furthermore, in the said email under the sub-heading of "MSE" the word "-NA-" or "not applicable" was mentioned. No reason has been provided for the disqualification of the petitioner's bid in the aforesaid email. Thereafter, petitioner vide its communication dated 07.09.2019 addressed to the respondent No. 2 enquired about the reasons for disqualification of its technical bid.
On 09.09.2019, the list of successful tender participants., Tabulation,Statement of Financial Bids was published on the IREPS portal and in the same, the name of the petitioner was missing.
Thereafter, petitioner sent another communication to the respondent no. 2 and requested it to clarify as to why in spite of the appropriate compliances regarding the exemption of Earnest Money Deposit formalities, the bid of the petition was disqualified and also on 13.09.2019, the petitioner sent yet another communications to the respondent No. 2 as to why the bid of the petitioner was disqualified but till date no reply has been received to any of the communications, as such, for redressal of its grievances, petitioner approached this Court with the following main relief:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction int he nature of Cerntorari, quashing the order of disqualification of the petitioner form Tender No. 04190168 and as consequence, allowing him to participate in the Final Reverse Auction for Financial Bids.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to disqualify and blacklist respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 for the e-auction process and to initiate appropriate anti-competitive proceedings against them."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order as contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition are non-speaking order and no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner.
Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent submits that the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week.
In view of the statemetn of Sri Shiv P. Shukla, Advocate, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not want to press the writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in respect to the reliefs sought, if any cause of action arise in that regard.
Accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record as well as taking into consideration the statement given by Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for, with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to communicate the reasons for passing of order as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition by which petitioner's technical bid has been rejected.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
(Saurabh Lavania, J.) (Anil Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Ravi/