Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Per Contra, Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel at the outset draws attention of this Court to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 3rd July, 2024 of the Committee constituted for finalizing of the NIT. He submits that the said Committee had, in pursuance of Point No.5 of the NIT, carried out its evaluation of the presentations made by the four bidders, which included the petitioner. He submits that there were certain parameters in Point No.5 of Technical Evaluation Criteria in the NIT which were to be fulfilled by the bidders before they would be deemed technically qualified. Learned counsel points out to the justifiable consideration of each of the said presentations and the cogent reasons given by the said Committee before holding the petitioner disqualified for next stage of the award of the contract.

22. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over to the Bench a communication dated 19th July, 2024 awarding the contract under the NIT to M/s BMA Foods Pvt. Ltd. In view thereof too, we are not inclined to interfere or interdict either the tender process or the award of the contract. In any case, the petitioner has not challenged the award of contract.

23. We have carefully considered the judgments relied upon by Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent in Din Bandhu Dass (supra) and agree with the observations rendered in the said judgments. In particular, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant paras of the said judgment reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11539:-

"...8. Mr. Kapur has also challenged the evaluation criteria and the marks awarded under each criteria. He submits that the committee comprises doctors and, apart from the fact that doctors would not be suited to assessing the listed criteria, it would even otherwise be virtually impossible to decide, say the quality and taste of juice. Similarly, senior counsel contends that other conditions are also completely arbitrary.