Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent-State of Jharkhand vide e-Tender Notice dated 07.06.2019 invited tenders for Reconstruction of Meral-Bana- Ambakhoriya Road. The P-1 participated in the said tender namely W-

1 and as per Clause 16 of the ITB to Standard Bidding Document (in short to be referred as SBD) of the said tender, submitted requisite bid security of Rs.133.58 lakhs by way of bank guarantee in the format as prescribed in the SBD. However, the said e-Tender was cancelled by the State respondents vide notice dated 20.08.2019 issued by the respondent no.4 and the original bank guarantee submitted by the P- 1 was returned back to it. Thereafter, a fresh e-Tender notice dated 20.08.2019 was issued for the same work with a similar condition contained in Clause 16 of the ITB to SBD to furnish a bid security of Rs.133.58 Lakhs. Pursuant to the 2nd Call tender dated 20.08.2019, the P-1 again participated in the said tender process and submitted the same bank guarantee after getting it amended by its banker. However, the technical bid of the P-1 was declared non-responsive by the Tender Evaluation Committee of the respondent authorities on the ground that its bid was non-responsive to Clause 16.3 of the ITB to SBD. The P-1, having come to know about the said fact, filed representation before the respondent no.3 on 04.10.2019 requesting therein to revise the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee, however the respondents did not pay any heed of the same.

6. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that respondent-State of Jharkhand vide e-Tender Notice dated 07.06.2019 invited tender for the said work i.e. W-2 and as per Clause 16 of the ITB to SBD of the said tender, the petitioner submitted the requisite bid security of Rs.105.72 lakhs by way of bank guarantee in the requisite format as prescribed in the SBD. However, the said e-Tender Notice was cancelled by the respondents vide notice issued by respondent no.4 dated 20.08.2019 and the bid security of the P-1 was returned. Thereafter, it issued a fresh e-Tender notice for the same work with similar conditions for furnishing the bid security of Rs.105.72 Lakhs as prescribed under Clause 16 of the ITB to SBD. The P-1 again participated in the said tender and submitted the amended bank guarantee. However, the Tender Evaluation Committee of the respondents declared the bid of the petitioner as non-responsive to Clause 16.3 of the ITB to SBD and the summary of the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee was uploaded in the website of the respondent-authorities under the signature of the respondent no.4 in Form No.5B. The P-1, after having come to know about the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee, filed a representation before the respondent no.3 on 04.10.2019 requesting the respondent no.3 to revise the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee and declare the bid of the P-1 as technically responsive, however the respondents did not pay any heed to the representation of the P-1. W.P.C No. 5894 of 2019:

15. Learned counsel for the private respondent- M/s. N. G. projects Limited [the respondent no.5 in W.P.(C) No.5416 of 2019] submits that the Tender Evaluation Committee has not accepted the technical bid of the P-1, as it did not submit the bank guarantee in the prescribed format as per the SBD. The amended bank guarantee presented by the P-1 could not have been accepted by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Even in the bank guarantee dated 30th August, 2019 there was difference in the amount mentioned in figure and words. The present respondent submitted the bank guarantee strictly in accordance with the format prescribed in the SBD. The date of re-tender was 20th August, 2019, whereas the bank guarantee of the P-1 was issued prior to the date of tender i.e. 9th July, 2019. As per the SBD, an affidavit was required to be duly notarized, however, the P-1 instead of getting the said affidavit notarized, merely submitted an attested affidavit. Moreover, as per the SBD, the bank guarantee was required to furnished in the prescribed format by the bidders. After the evaluation of the technical bid, the financial bid was opened and the private respondent was found L-1. Accordingly, letter of acceptance was issued to it vide letter dated 16th October, 2019. The agreement for execution of the work has also been executed with the State respondents on 21st October, 2019 and, thereafter, the work has already been started. The present respondent has also submitted a bill of Rs.75.00 lacs for execution of the work and as such the writ petition preferred by the P-1 is not worth consideration.

24. The issue before this Court in the present case is as to whether there is any arbitrariness, unreasonableness, mala fide, biasness in the decision making processing of the State respondents so as to make any interference with the present tender(s). If so, what appropriate order can be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

25. The State respondents initially while filing counter affidavit took stand that there was infirmity in the bid document of the P-1, whereas the bids of the private respondents were strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed in the SBD. However, the P-1 filed rejoinder affidavit to controvert the said averment made by the State respondents in their counter affidavit and stated that there were infirmities in the bid documents of the private respondents as well as other bidders, whose technical bids were held responsive. In support of the said contention, the P-1 has annexed the relevant part of the bid document of other bidders. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the P-1 on the said issue has not specifically been controverted by the learned Advocate General while making his argument, however, has taken a stand that some of the mistakes committed by the bidders while submitting their respective bank guarantees were waived by the Tender Evaluation Committee and were made effective for all bidders, including the P-1. Apart from the common mistakes, the petitioner had committed other major mistakes, which could not have been waived and, thus, the Tender Evaluation Committee held the technical bid of the petitioner to be non- responsive. In support of the said argument advanced by the learned Advocate General, no such minutes of Tender Evaluation Committee has been brought on record so as to satisfy this court that the common mistakes were waived, but major/fatal mistakes found in the bank guarantee presented by the P-1 could not have been waived and, thus, its technical bid was declared non-responsive.