Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.1. In the Annexure to the technical bid of the petitioner, the MSE registration status is shown as "Nil". The petitioner filed a declaration of undertaking on its letterhead stating that it is not an MSE bidder. The petitioner having participated in the bid as non-MSE bidder had conveniently covered up the same and had purported to state that the MSE certificate has been inadvertently omitted, which is a false statement. The submission of the MSE certificate by the petitioner on 18.06.2020 after opening of the price bid is only an afterthought to manipulate the results to suit their convenience. The tender clause 12.2(b) provides that the "missing document sought is allowed to be submitted only by uploading on the tender website through which the same has been asked." Therefore, the submission of the document through email dated 18.06.2020 is invalid and cannot be considered by the first respondent.

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Clause 12.2 captioned "Further evaluation of Stage : I Technical Bid". Clause 12.2(b) reads as follows :

"12.2. Further evaluation of Stage : I Technical Bid .....
(b) The Corporation, if necessary may ask the tenderer for any specific information / clarification relating to qualifying document / condition or can seek missing documents(s). The required clarification and missing document will be asked from only those bidders who have fullfilled the minimum eligibility criteria and it must be uploaded within specific time subject to maximum of 15 days on the same portal as per the proceure prescribed below i.e. in clauses 12.3."

(emphasis supplied) Relying on the above provision, it was submitted that the Corporation ought to have sought for missing document from the petitioner as per http://www.judis.nic.in the above clause. The missing document referred to herein is the MSME Registration Certificate.

11. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent that when the petitioner had not registered under the Micro and Small Enterprises, it was not for the Corporation to ask for the missing document. Learned counsel would point out that the petitioner had, along with other documents, sent a document signed by him stating specifically "tender not registered under micro & small Enterprises". The said document, which was filed before this court by the first respondent is admitted by the petitioner. Having asserted that they are not applying under the MSEs category by sending the above document, it is not open to the petitioner to expect the Corporation to call for the missing document from him.

12. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the MSE Registration Certificate of the petitioner sent on 18.06.2020 was not considered by the first respondent is countenanced by the first respondent stating that even as per Clause 12.2(b), any missing document ought to have been uploaded within the specified time subject to maximum of 15 days on the same portal as per the procedure prescribed in clause 12.3. Admittedly, the said document was not http://www.judis.nic.in uploaded within 15 days, but it was done only after the technical and price bids were opened. Secondly, when the tender document specifies that the uploading should be in the same portal as per the procedure prescribed, the document was sent by email. Therefore, it was not considered by the first respondent. Besides, it is not obligatory on the part of the first respondent to seek any document or clarification as it is provided only for a bona fide purpose and not for favouring any applicant/bidder. The petitioner, who claims to be the existing contractor and is in the field for more than three and a half decade, has the experience of applying for such contracts. Therefore, it would not be fair on the part of the petitioner to say that due to inadvertence he had omitted to file the certificate at the first instance.