Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's technical bid had been disqualified on the basis of Clause 3.2 of Section 1 (Instructions to Bidders) and Clause 4.7. He submits that the disqualification of bidders in terms of the amendment to Clause 3.2 of the Instructions to Bidders (in short "ITB") could only be made on account of blacklisting and for conviction Page No.# 6/29 of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being enforced at the time of submission of the bids. In other words, the learned senior counsel submits that mere pendency of litigations cannot be a ground for disqualification under Clause 3.2 or Clause 4.7 of the ITB. The petitioner's counsel further submits that around 1,000 employees had filed various claims against the petitioner and the petitioner has secured favourable orders in more than 300 cases. He submits that in the CBI case, chargesheet has been filed. However, no charge has been framed till date. He submits that the case against the NHM, Rajasthan is with regard to non-payment of dues by the NHM, Rajasthan. He submits that though there was stoppage of Mobile Medical Units operated by the petitioner under the NHM, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner has taken part in a subsequent tender process under the NHM, Madhya Pradesh.

7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner having disclosed all information that was required to be disclosed in terms of Clause 4.7 of the ITB, regarding the number of litigations involving the petitioner for the last 3 (three) years, there was no justification for disqualifying the petitioner's bid at the stage of opening the technical bid. He submits that the responsiveness of a bidder would have to be considered in terms of Clause 4.XXV "Bid Evaluation" of the ITB. As the petitioner's technical bid had been given the bench mark of 65 marks, by securing 90 marks out of 100 marks, and keeping in view Rule 23(16)

11. The learned Advocate General for the State of Assam submits that the petitioner's technical bid was not disqualified on the basis of Clause 3.2 of Section 1 of ITB. He submits that besides the parameters laid down for giving Page No.# 9/29 marks to the bidders at the time of bid evaluation, other factors can be looked into by the Bid Process Management Committee, which includes Clause 4.7 of the ITB. He submits that the petitioner is involved in 790 litigations, besides having cases with the CBI and the NHM Rajasthan. The petitioner is also under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. Further, the petitioner's services involving 144 Mobile Medical Units have been stopped by the NHM, Madhya Pradesh and it was also involved in violation of Employees Provident Fund Rules. He submits that the above factors were and can be looked into by the Bid Process Management Committee to ensure that the scheme of the State Government runs smoothly, as it is for the interest of general public. He submits that the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid having been made on account of the above factors, which is in public interest, the decision of the Bid Process Management Committee should not be interfered with. The learned Advocate General also submits that the stopping of the mobile vehicle units of the petitioner by the NHM, Madhya Pradesh, was due to serious illegality and deficiencies found in the mobile hospital services of the petitioner. Though the same was apparently informed to the petitioner, no corrective action was taken for the same. In this regard, he has relied upon a letter dated 21.12.2020 issued by the Mission Conductor, NHM, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. He also submits that Clause 25 of the ITB, which pertains to examination of bids and determination of responsiveness, does not bar the Bid Process Management Committee from going into the other factors, besides the parameters laid down in Clause 25 of the ITB for deciding the responsiveness of a technical bid.

21. The amended Clause 3.2 of Section 1 of the ITB requires a bidder to submit an undertaking that he was not blacklisted nor convicted of an offence under the provision of Corruption Act, 1988 or the Indian Penal Code or any other law from the time being in force at the time of submission of Bid. The petitioner's case clearly does not attract the amended clause of Section 1 of the ITB and as such, the same could not be a ground to disqualify the petitioner's technical bid.

22. Section 1 Clause 4 speaks about the qualification of the bidder and the information and documents that have to be included by the tenderers in their bids. Clause 4.7 requires the bidders to submit information regarding litigation, current or during the last three years in which the tenderer is involved, the parties concerned and disputed amount. The information to be furnished by the bidders under Clause 4.7 of Section 1 of the ITB cannot be said to be immaterial Page No.# 18/29 information which can be ignored, as that can have a bearing on the profile and reputation of a bidder. Clause 4.7 being a part of the information required from tenderers, which is relatable to the qualification of a bidder, the same, in the opinion of this Court can be considered by the technical evaluation committee, as the same relates to Clause 4.XXI(a) of the ITB. The said information cannot be ignored by authorities. The stand of the petitioner's counsel that the State respondents could not disqualify the petitioner's technical bid on the basis of Clause 4.7, so long as the bidder has supplied all the current information in terms of the said clause is not acceptable for various reasons. The same will have to be considered by the State respondents. For example, if litigation involving any of the bidders pertains to fraud, forgery, cheating etc., common sense would dictate that the same should be considered by the authorities, to decide as to whether it would be prudent for the authorities to qualify such a tenderer for giving a contract, which would be in public interest. Giving of information by a tenderer under Clause 4.7 does not lose its relevance on the submission of information regarding the various litigations involving the tenderer. The same has a practical purpose and can be deemed appropriate/used by the authorities to consider whether it would be prudent to allow the bid of such a tenderer to continue in the tender process. In the present case, there appears to be a valid apprehension with regard to the involvement of the respondent No. 6 in various litigations and actions with various authorities, as the same thing can befall them.