Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: incomplete document in M/S Indo Bright Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 7 November, 2019Matching Fragments
construct LPG Bottling Plant as per OISD-169 guidelines on the offered land at his own cost.
14. Ms. Arora submits that the second ground for rejection is that the No- Objection Certificate was not submitted to respondent No. 2 on or before the closing date i.e. 28.09.2018; but was submitted on 28.02.2019 i.e. much after closing the date. For this purpose she relies upon the No-Objection Certificate annexed at page 289 of the petition. Ms. Arora further relies upon Clause 9 (Round I) of the E-Tender document which states that in case the petitioner fails to submit any documents or submits incomplete documents, the bid will be rejected. Clause 9 (Round I) is reproduced as under :-
W.P.(C) 3517/2019 page 6 of 19 "9. Selection / Evaluation Procedure:
Round I - Evaluation of Technical Bid Documents:
... ... Despite the above in case of any shortfall in the documents, the bidder shall be provided with only ONE opportunity provided with only 01 (One) and final chance to submit any shortfall of documents which will be communicated to them on the e-portal within a time bound period of 7 (seven) days. It will be the bidder's responsibility to access the e-tendering portal on a daily basis to check communication in this regard. In case the bidder fails to submit any documents or submits incomplete documents within the given time, the bid will be rejected..."
18. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that respondent No. 2 has also rejected all other bids where the inspection committee members had during their site inspection found that the proposed plot had electrical line/wire passing through the plot.
19. Ms. Meenakshi Arora submits that the second ground of rejection is that out of twelve co-owners of the offered plot, lease was executed by the petitioner with only four co-owners. To buttress this argument, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 relies upon Part II of the Tender Document which is already reproduced in a foregoing para. Ms. Arora further submits that the third ground of rejection is that the No-Objection Certificate from other co-owners in this case was not submitted on or before the closing date i.e. 28/9/18 ; and that the No-Objection Certificate was submitted on 06/3/19, much after the closing date and for this purpose she relies upon the No-Objection Certificate annexed at page 170 of the petition. She further relies upon Clause 9 (Round I) of the Tender document, which states that incase the petitioner fails to submit any documents or submits incomplete documents, the bid will be rejected.
28. The aforementioned condition in the tender makes it abundantly clear that incomplete documents would not be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that alongwith the lease deed, related documents were also supplied which is disputed by learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2.
W.P.(C) 3517/2019 page 12 of 19
29. Be that as it may, if the petitioner had entered into a lease in respect to the offered plot which was to be partitioned as between the co-owners to facilitate construction of the LPG bottling plant, the co-owners should have been made confirming parties or their no-objections should have been annexed alongwith the lease deed. Although no-objection was filed from other co-owners, the same has been filed well beyond the cut-off date and the same would be of no value. Thus, we find no merit in the petitioner's contentions even with respect to the site at Sikar.