Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Grounds raised in the writ petitions and the response of the respondents

28. In the above background of facts, the grounds on which the petitioner challenges the rejection of his technical bid are:

(i) that in respect of another work for Mandi Division, the petitioner was held qualified on the basis of similar facts; (ii) that in respect of another item of work in Shimla also, the petitioner was held qualified; (iii) that the interpretation given by World Bank to OPRC Contracts (Output Performance based Road Contract), as per their Standard Procurement Document .

34. Even assuming without admitting that the petitioner's technical bid was held qualified in respect of another contract, the same cannot preclude the respondents from applying the terms and conditions contained in the bid document in this case. We cannot apply the logic "once qualified always .

qualified". Therefore, the first two grounds of attack are liable to be rejected.

35. The third ground of attack to the impugned rejection is that the interpretation given by World Bank to OPRC Contracts (Output Performance based Road Contract), as per their Standard Procurement Document was that these contracts are original works and hence the Work Done Detail relied upon by the petitioner at Sr. No. 8 was actually an original contract.

heading suggests, it is only a Standard Procurement Document made available, purportedly by World Bank to be used by anyone. Whatever is contained in the said document cannot be equated either to Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon or Blacks'Law Dictionary. It is also not necessary that whatever is contained in the said document was required to be adopted as such.

38. In fact, the caption given to the details furnished in the said document reads as follows: