High Court held that the tendering process should be clear and definite and it should not uncertain[Read Order]

The High Court of Delhi, in the case of M/S Paschatya Entertainment PVT. Ltd v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held that the tendering process should be clear and definite and there should be no room for any uncertainty. 

FACTS

The respondent issued the notice inviting E-Auction for allotment of six multi-level underground authorized parking sites falling under the jurisdiction of the respondent. The Pre-Bid meeting was scheduled and the date of E-Auction bidding was fixed. However, on account of the lockdown imposed by the Government due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent extended the date of submission and uploading of documents and online submission of EMD by issuing a Corrigendum. Accordingly, the dates for E-Auction bidding were also pushed to a later date.

Once again, the second corrigendum was issued extending the date, later third Corrigendum was again issued extending the date and time for submission and uploading of documents and online submission of EMD and further respondent provided several relaxations for the submission with regard to documents.

ISSUE

The petitioner has preferred the writ petition to direct the respondent SDMC to extend the date of submission of online bid and uploading of documents in respect of notice inviting E-Auction.

PETITIONER SUBMISSION

The petitioner submissions before the court is that:

1. his Chartered Accountant could not provide the requisite certificates since he was not able to access his records due to the lockdown
2. the petitioner has the financial capacity and is otherwise eligible to participate in the tender in question, and the petitioner may be permitted to give an undertaking that he would provide the requisite certificates and he should be provisionally permitted to participate in the further tendering process.

Respondent Submissions

1. that apart from the petitioner, no other contractor made a similar request for extension of time for submission and uploading of documents and deposit of EMD.
2. He further submits that the petitioner is habitual in making such requests and, even in the past, the petitioner made a similar request when no lockdown was in place.

COURT FINDINGs

The High Court of Delhi held that:

1. The respondent is incurring huge expenses and loss of revenue in the process, and it has become a drain on the coffers of the respondents.
2. The present arrangement with DIMTS is expired it is imperative for the respondents to have the new contractors in place to run the parking lots in question
3. The income tax returns can be accessed online by the assessee and, therefore, the petitioner may not be fully justified in claiming that it could not procure the said documents since its Chartered Accountant is not able to function due to the lockdown.
4. the petitioner would have submitted his experience certificate with his earlier tenders, which were floated in the recent past, including the one floated
5. The tendering process has to be clear and definite and there is no room for any uncertainty.

Further, the Delhi High Court held that only those bidders who are technically qualified can be permitted to participate in the process of financial bidding.

the High Court dismissed the petition.

Read Order @LatestLaws