HC rejected the contention of the petitioner who used pandemic as an excuse for non-fulfillment of tender requirements [Read Order]

The Delhi HC in, JP AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UOI & ORS. rejected the contentions of the petitioner who bid a tender for providing services at the airport. The petitioner raised issues like non-operation of flight etc but the court, however, stated that the petitioner had enough time to deliver required documents via alternate means and that the rejection of bid was justified.

Facts

Airport Authority of India(AAI) invited tenders for ground handling services in Jan. 2019. But the same was canceled and the new bid was started on 6.03.2020. The last date for it was 30.03.2020. However, due to the pandemic, the process started in July. the petitioner company submitted the e-tender for the same on 31.07.2020 at 3:33 pm. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to send the original tender papers and security in the form of a demand draft or as a bank guarantee, within five working days after the Bid Due Date. The bid security had to reach on 7.08.2020 before 5 pm. However, it did not reach by the stipulated time, and tender was rejected.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioner stated that Kolkata (where he belonged) was the worst affected state due to pandemic. Flights were off since 15th July and also the courier service took a longer time than expected. The Petitioner even wrote emails seeking an extension of date. It was contended that rejection of the bid of the petitioner is completely arbitrary and has been done without taking into account the ground reality. It stated that it was the mistake on part of the courier and invoked Clause 2.17.2 of the Tender Documents which provides that in exceptional circumstances the authority may solicit the bidder's consent to an extension of the period of bid validity. The petitioner had informed the court that the documents were still lying with the postal authorities at Kolkata.

Respondent’s Contention

The respondent stated that the deadline was non-negotiable and relied on  Clause 2.15.1 of the Tender Documents which talked for rejection due to non-submission in stipulated time. Also, a similar company coming from the same state had sent the tender requirements on time. Further, alternatives were suggested by respondents which could’ve been taken into consideration.

Court’s Order

The Court observed that the e-tender was submitted on 31.07.2020 and the flight became non-operational on 15.07.2020. Therefore, the petitioner was well-aware that the flights were non-operational and should’ve taken alternate steps to deliver the documents. Also, a similar company did send the required documents despite hailing from a similar state and under the same circumstances. The court thus held, “Once the petitioner failed to comply with the tender conditions, there cannot be any infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent No.3 of rejecting its bid as non-responsive.”

Read Order @Latestlaws.com