A division judge bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and Manoj Kumar Tiwari of Uttarakhand HC has dismissed the present petition and held that respondent no. 5 rightly relied on Clause 10 of the e-tender document and one cannot go into the office to check the format. They also held petitioner guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.
Facts:
The case made out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondent authorities have incorrectly declared the technical bid of respondent No. 5 to be compliant. This submission of the petitioner is premised on the requirement in the tendering conditions - of bidders being required to furnish bid security. In this case, the bid security amount was Rs.56,00,000/-. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 5 did not submit the bid security for Rs.56,00,000/- by furnishing a fixed deposit, like the petitioner had done.
The respondent authorities points out that the terms and conditions of the E-tender document permitted the bidders to submit the bid security “in the form bid securing declaration (in the format provided in the Tender Document)” on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-. He submits that respondent No. 5 had opted to fill the form i.e. the bid securing declaration, instead of furnishing bid security of Rs.56,00,000/-. This was permitted under the terms of the tender and, therefore, there is no merit in the petitioner’s submission that respondent No. 5 was technically disqualified.
The petitioner relies upon the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner to submit that though in the uploaded E-tender condition No. 10 was present, in the signed bid document, as issued by the respondent authorities, the said clause is missing. He further submits that the petitioner had been raising the issue with regard to the disqualification of respondent No. 5 with the respondent authorities, but they did not respond, and did not place reliance on Clause 10 of the Etender document.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the technical bids were opened on 22.06.2022 and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No. 5, they should have approached this Court soon after the said date but they approached on 30.09.2022 which make them guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court. The petitioner has raised this dispute when he found that the he was not the lowest bidder, and respondent No. 5 is the lowest bidder and his bid is 3 crore more than the respondent no.5.
In respect to the submission with regard to Clause 10 is concerned, the court finds out that the fact remains, that the said Clause was put in public domain by the respondent authorities while uploading the E-tender document. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 was justified in relying upon Clause 10 of the Etender document, and acting in terms thereof. Even the petitioner could have done so, if the petitioner so liked. Respondent No. 5 was not obliged to go to the office of the respondent authorities to check as to what is the format of the tender document signed and kept on the file.
Decision:
The present petition was dismissed as this court do not find any lapse on the part of respondent No. 5 in acting in terms of Clause 10 of the Etender document.
Case: M/s Trilok Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand and others
Citation: WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2488 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Dated: 13.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
