Debangsu Basak JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the rejection of his technical bid.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, not only the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was incorrect, but also, the tender evaluation process was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner participated in the notice inviting e-tender issued by the Irrigation and Waterways Directorate for special repair of drainage channel of Nalipara at Barakar under Asansol Municipal Corporation. The prequalification work credential requirement of the tender requires a participant to have undertaken major item as described in protection work (Type A) of the tender conditions of a value of Rs. 38.23 lakhs for an individual and Rs. 76.45 lakhs for consortium/joint venture. According to him, the petitioner undertook protection work (Type A) as described in the tender conditions at least in two projects of value far in excess of Rs. 38.23 lakhs. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to, the documents submitted by the petitioner in the tender process. He has submitted that, the authorities wrongfully and illegally did not take into consideration at least three items of work in one of the projects executed by the petitioner, and at least two items of work in the other project. The non considered items of work by themselves qualified the value prescribed in the tender process, let alone the entirety of the value of the work undertaken by the petitioner, in such projects. Therefore, according to him, the rejection of the technical bid by the authorities was incorrect.
3. Referring to the general terms and conditions of the tender process, he has submitted that, the tender conditions prescribed the schedule of important dates of the e-tenders. Under such schedule, the authorities are required to provide clear four working days between the date of the opening of the technical bid and the opening of the financial bid for disposal of complaints and obtaining of decision from appellate authority. In the present case, such schedule was not adhered to. Non-adherence with such schedule caused immense prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner could not approach the appellate authority to urge his complaints. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the tender summary report appearing at page 101 of the writ petition and has submitted that, the technical bid was claimed to be opened on January 5, 2018 which was later updated on January 11, 2018. The financial bid was opened on January 11, 2018 itself. Therefore, four clear days were not provided between the opening of the technical bid and the financial bid. In such circumstances, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner should be held to be bad. The petitioner held to be qualified in the tender process.
4. Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that, the technical bid of the petitioner was evaluated in accordance with the tender conditions. There are no infirmities or irregularities in such evaluation process warranting an interference by a Writ Court. He has relied upon MANU/SC/1003/2016 : 2016 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases page 818 (Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr.) and has submitted that, the Courts should be slow in interfering with the decision making process in accepting or rejecting a bid. In the present case, the decision making process does not suffer from any mala fides. It has not been substantiated that, the decision was intended to favour someone. It has also not been substantiated that, the decision is arbitrary or irrational or such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached such a decision.