Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19, a General Order dated 30.03.2020 [“General Order”] was issued, through which the validity of all documents relating to transportation services were deemed to be extended till 30.06.2020. This being the case, this contention was decided against JK Roadways, and it was held that the Appellant fulfilled the eligibility condition of holding a valid service licence.

3b. Secondly, it was found that the Appellant did in fact own 30 vehicles including heavy motor vehicles [“HMV”] and light motor vehicles [“LMV”], as a list of 36 vehicles was furnished to ZPHS, the tendering authority. Since a complaint in this regard had been made by the unsuccessful bidders, the same was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar [“SSP”] to ascertain the veracity of the documents furnished. The SSP submitted a report finding that though 5 vehicles were found to be owned by individuals other than the Appellant, 31 vehicles were still owned by the Appellant, as a result of which the eligibility condition was satisfied. It was also found that insofar as 1 vehicle was concerned, it was indeed owned by the Appellant as there existed a typographical error in the registration number of the vehicle.

(II) That the respondent No.5 despite lacking the requisite experience in supply of vehicles, was awarded the contract, which action has amounted to award of contract in favour of an ineligible bidder to the exclusion of an eligible bidder.”
5. After setting out Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T., the Division Bench concluded:
“16) From a perusal of the aforesaid condition, it is clear that the official respondents while formulating the tender notice have used the expression “HMV/LMV” meaning thereby that a tenderer had the option of furnishing the particulars of either HMVs or LMVs or both types of vehicles. No other construction can be given to the expression “HMV/LMV”. If the official respondents desired that a tenderer must own both types of vehicles i.e. HMVs as well as LMVs, they could have easily used the word “and” instead of “/” in between HMV and LMV in the tender notice, use whereof refers to “or”. This is not the case over here. Thus, if the appellant has furnished the list of Heavy Motor Vehicles only, he has done what a reasonable and prudent person would do upon going through the tender condition quoted hereinabove. The action of the official respondents of rejection of technical bid of the appellant on the ground of non-furnishing of list of both types of vehicle is, therefore, irrational, arbitrary and perverse. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is full of substance and deserves to be accepted.
17) Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG, has submitted that the tender notice condition stated “both HMV/LMV” which meant that the tenderers had to provide details of both HMV and LMV vehicles. Per contra learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has contended that the very appellant was found eligible in respect of the same condition and was awarded the same work for the previous five years which was satisfactorily completed.
18) We are unable to agree with the submission of Sr. AAG. As already noted, if the respondents required provision of details of both HMV and LMV vehicles, they would have placed “and” between them. This has not been done.”

xxx xxx xxx

31. The firm/tenderer should have owned at least 30 nos. of vehicles both HMV/LMV and attached 200 vehicles with the firm alongwith documentary proof.”

13. Even a cursory glance at Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T. would show that the 30 vehicles referred to, are “both HMV/LMV”. The tendering authority has construed this condition to mean that both types of vehicles, i.e., HMV and LMV, need to be included in the list of the 30 vehicles submitted by each bidder.