ion>V. Ramasubramanian#Anoop Chitkara#20HP1000Judgment/OrderMANUV. Ramasubramanian,HIMACHAL PRADESH2019-8-9 -->



CWP No. 1118 of 2019

Decided On: 06.08.2019

Appellants: Ashish Sharma Vs. Respondent: State of H.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V. Ramasubramanian, C.J. and Anoop Chitkara


V. Ramasubramanian, C.J.

1. Challenging the rejection of his technical bid in a tender for Periodical Renewal Work of a Highway, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 4.

3. On 10.04.2019, the 2nd respondent issued an 'Invitation for Bid' for the award of a contract for the periodical renewal work from 90/0 to 100/0 on NH 70 (new NH-03) in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Annual Renewal Programme for the year 2019-2020. The petitioner submitted his technical and financial bid online on 29.04.2019. After intimating him on 15.05.2019, through an e-mail sent at 5.52 p.m. that his technical bid has been accepted, the respondents informed the petitioner by a subsequent e-mail sent on the same day that the duly constituted Committee has rejected his bid during technical evaluation. Though the e-mail did not indicate the reasons, the Evaluation Committee's opinion was published in the website by the respondents on the same day. It revealed that the bid submitted by the petitioner was treated as nonresponsive, in the light of Clauses 4.3 and 4.5.3(b) of the ITB. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Admittedly, the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was held to be nonresponsive in the light of Clauses 4.3(a) and 4.5.3(b). Therefore, it would be useful to extract these Clauses.

5. Clauses 4.3(a) reads as follows:

"If the Employer has not undertaken prequalification of potential bidders, all bidders shall include the following information and documents with their-bids in Section 2:

(a) Copies of original documents defining the constitution or legal status, place of registration, and principal place of business; written power of attorney of the signatory of the Bid to commit the Bidder;"

6. Clauses 4.5.3(a) & (b) read as follows:

"4.5.3. General Experience The applicant shall meet the following minimum criteria:

(a) Average annual turnover (defined as billing for works in progress and completed in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) over the last five years of 33 per cent of the value of contract/contracts applied for.

(b) Experience in successfully completing or substantially completing at least one contract of MDR/highway (road and/or bridge works) airport runway of at least 33 per cent of the value of proposed contract within the last five years."

7. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is a Class-B Contractor registered with the Department and that as per the conditions of his registration, he is eligible to participate in tenders of the value of upto ` 200.00 lacs only. But the approximate value of the work in question is ` 3,68,87,635/-. Therefore, the first ground on which the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected was that the petitioner does not qualify as per Clause 4.3(a).

8. But we have extracted Clause 4.3(a) already. The said Clause merely speaks about the requirement to furnish original documents defining the constitution or legal status, place of registration etc. of the bidder. In other words, Clause 4.3(a) is a prescription under which the status of the bidder, either as an individual or as a member of the HUF or as a partner in a firm or as a private........