M/S. Shiv Engineering And Port Services ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4808 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Shiv Engineering And Port Services ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam ... on 26 June, 2024

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

      MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.13241 of 2024
                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                      OFFICE
        DATE                                     ORDER
No.                                                                                       NOTE

1.    26.06.2024   NV,J

                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
                   learned counsel for the Respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to Respondent No.5 by register post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the registry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that one of the documents was not uploaded i.e. Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) document. He further submits that the entire bidding tender application was submitted physically including NIT document on the same day i.e.12.06.2024. But, for the reasons best known to the Respondents, the bid of the petitioner was technically disqualified on the sole ground that one of the NIT document was not uploaded to the website.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.No.242 of 2022. In similar circumstances,

non-submission of uploading of documents in Central Public Procurement (CPP) Portal cannot be a ground for disqualification. If the documents are physically submitted that should be considered for more competition and betterment of the institution or tender. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court, there is a force in respect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the disqualification is not only on the sole ground of non submission of documents but also in respect of eligibility of experience. The experience evaluated by the evaluation committee appears that the petitioner got experience in respect of operation and management of poles by way of supply of manpower but it is not similar experience as required as was envisaged in the tender document. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disqualification of the petitioner from the technical bidding is not only for non submission of the documents but also due to lack of experience as envisaged under tender document. He further submits that the tender was already finalized and petitioner as well as successful bidder were informed by the Respondents. More so, the Letter of Intent (LOI) was already issued in favour of Respondent No.5 i.e. successful bidder.

Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsels, there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner at present. Therefore, the Respondents are directed not to enter any agreement and finalise the tender with the successful bidder till further orders in the writ petition.

It is further clarified that the Respondents are at liberty to continue the regular existing works with existing agency or by way of temporary nominee in accordance with law.

For filing counter affidavit by the Respondents, post the matter after two weeks.

________ NV, J knr