Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) certificate submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the tender as valid and eligible for exemption from payment of earnest money and for further directing the respondent to open the price bid of the petitioner. ===============================================================

2. On 29.07.2014, the respondent No.2 Indian Oil Corporation Limited floated four separate Notices inviting e-tender (NIT) for supply and installation of High Mast Signage work including design manufacturing, supply, transportation, installation and Commissioning at various retail outlets of Indian Oil Corporation. The tender was a two bid system, i.e., the technical bid and the price bid.

3. On 04.08.2014, the petitioner submitted both the technical as well as the price bids. The petitioner claimed itself to be a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME).

4. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was eligible for exemption from submitting earnest money deposit. As per the petitioner certificate dated 06.06.2014 issued by NSIC was submitted with the bid document.

5. On 11.11.2014, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited is stated to have informed the petitioner that the technical bid of the petitioner had been rejected. It is contended that the reasons for rejection were not communicated. However, subsequently on a demand, the reason communicated was that the petitioner did not meet the pre-qualifying condition of the NIT. As per the petitioner, the alleged ground of rejection is the invalidity of the NSIC certificate.

8. An application was filed by the respondent No.2 seeking vacation of the interim order and the matter was, accordingly, taken up on the said application and was finally heard.

9. As per the respondents, it was a tender condition that the Earnest Money Deposit instrument had to be uploaded on the e-tender website as a PDF document and all tenderers, who claimed exemption from Earnest Money Deposit, should upload the valid exemption NSIC certificate. All documents and Earnest Money Deposit instruments were to be uploaded with the technical/commercial bid. It is contended that the petitioner, having accepted the tender condition and having submitted his bid without any demur or objection, cannot be permitted to impugn the tender condition and in case, the petitioner =============================================================== desired to avail of any exemption in accordance with the terms of the tender condition, then the petitioner had to strictly comply with the same. It is contended that the petitioner applied in the MSME category seeking exemption from deposit of EMD, the petitioner should have ensured that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was in conformity with the tender conditions and entitled the petitioner for an exemption. It is submitted that the exemption from submission of EMD was only available to the parties as per MSME Act 2006. It is contended that as per the tender, for a certificate to be valid, it should be valid on the date of the opening of the bid and also cover the items tendered. It is submitted that it was a condition of the tender that, in case, EMD was not furnished, the bid shall be rejected.

20. The petitioner submitted the bid being aware of the tender conditions and as such the petitioner should have ensured that if the petitioner was claiming exemption from payment of Earnest Money Deposit then the certificate submitted by it should conform to the tender conditions. The petitioner, having not submitted either the Earnest Money Deposit or a valid certificate qualifying for an exemption, cannot be permitted raise to a grievance of rejection of the bid.

21. There is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents could not have qualified the NSIC certificate by making it restricted to the items covered by the tender and NSIC certificate should have been treated as valid for all items. The tender document itself stipulated that the certificate must cover =============================================================== the items tendered. The petitioner, being aware of the said tender conditions participated in the tender and having participated in the tender, cannot challenge or impugn the tender condition. The petitioner having participated in the tender process can only expect equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids. The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the terms and conditions of the tender after he had participated in the same.