Chattisgarh High Court
M/S. Maruti Cottex Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2022
-1-
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3676 of 2021
M/s. Maruti Cottex Limited Having Its Registered Office At Sy.No. 257,
Village And Mdl Choutuppal, District Yadadri, Bhuvangiri, Telangana State-
508252, Through Its Director Vikrant Garg S/o Late Vijay Garg, Aged About
43 Years, Telangana
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Village
Industries And Handloom, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Handloom Development And Marketing Cooperative
Federation (Chhattisgarh Rajya Hathkargha Vikas Avam Vipnan Sahkari
Sangh Maryadit), Through Its Secretary Office At B-26, Sector-07, New
Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Handloom Development And
Marketing Cooperative Federation (Chhattisgarh Rajya Hathkargha Vikas
Avam Vipnan Sahkari Sangh Maryadit), Through Its Secretary Office At B-26,
Sector-07, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. M/s Vijay Anand Fabricas (P) Limited Pillaipally (V), Pachampally (M)
Yadadri, Bhuvangari, District (A.P.)., Andhra Pradesh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Govt. Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Harshwardhan Parghania, Advocate
Date of hearing : 11.07.2022
Date of Order : 17.08.2022
-2-
DB : Hon'ble The Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
CAV Order
Per Parth Prateem Sahu , J.
1. Respondents have floated Notice Inviting Tender (for short "NIT") for
dying, processing and printing of grey cloth from the bidders who are
engaged in dying, printing and processing of cloth. Traders and Dealers
were excluded. Opening date of purchase of tender document started on
05.03.2021. Submission of the sample of dying processed cloth was
17.04.2021 and last date of submission of tender document by the
tenderers was 19.04.2021 and on the same date, bids submitted by the
tenderers were opened. Petitioner along with other tenderers submitted
bids and upon evaluation of the technical bid, petitioner was declared to
be eligible bidder and, thereafter, the financial bids of the tenderer were
opened in which petitioner emerged as L-1 bidder.
2. Respondent No.1 wrote letter, asking the petitioner to submit working
certificate issued by the competent authority. Petitioner submitted relevant
documents, but, even then, the petitioner was not provided with the work
order. Respondents have entered into an agreement with respondent
No.4 on 31.07.2021 which led the petitioner to approach this Court by
way of filing this writ petition with following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to call for the
entire records pertaining to the subject tender.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to issue supply
order in favour of the petitioner firm with respect
to the items for which the rate quoted by the
petitioner are lowest.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to hold the agreement dated 31.07.2021
(Annexure P-12) as bad in law and further be
pleased to quash/set aside the agreement dated
31.07.2021, in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem
fit and appropriate."
3. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is engaged in business of dying, printing and processing of
the cloth. Petitioner is having its unit at Choutuppal, District- Yadadri
Bhuvanagiri, Telangana State. As per the tender document (Annexure P-
2) issued by the respondent, petitioner submitted his bid and his bid was
found to be lowest (L-1). Petitioner submitted all the required documents
as asked by respondent subsequent of his becoming L-1. Though the
petitioner-Unit was served with a closure order by Telangana State
Pollution Control Board (for short "TSPCB") vide order dated 22.06.2019,
but, thereafter, on the application made by the petitioner, the closure order
was revoked temporarily by issuing the orders time to time in this regard.
Financial bids submitted by the tenderers were finalized on 29.06.2021.
Respondent authority, only to give undue advantage to respondent No.4
had entered into an agreement with respondent No.4 on 31.07.2021
without informing anything to the petitioner in spite of his emerging L-1 for
those items. He contended that even if the bids were finalized on
29.06.2021, the petitioner has to complete the work up to December 2021
and the petitioner has submitted extension of temporary revocation of
closure for a further period of six months dated 16.08.2021. The
agreement was executed in a very haste manner, without considering the
actual requirement under the tender document. He contended that
respondents be directed to give the work order in favour of petitioner and
to quash the agreement dated 31.07.2021 executed in favour of
respondent No.4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 446 and
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
And Anr. (2016) 16 SCC 818.
4. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 would
submit that as per the tender notification, last date of submission of bid by
the tenderers was 19.04.2021. In the tender document itself, it is
mentioned that the required documents are to be submitted along with
tender document. As per clause- 13 of the tender document, there is
mandatory requirement that the renewal certificate issued by the Pollution
Control Board should be live and valid on the date of opening of the bids.
Under clause -20 of the tender document, along with techo-commercial
bid, tenderers are required to submit "No Objection Certificate" and copy
of renewal certificate issued by the State Pollution Control Board. On the
date of submission of tender document, petitioner was not having the said
certificate, as appearing from the document submitted by the petitioner.
Under clause-14, it is also mentioned that it is not binding upon the
respondent to give work to the lowest bidder, but there is further
requirement that it will be determined only after comparing with sample
cloth supplied by the tenderers. The petitioner did not fulfill the terms and
conditions of the tender document and, therefore, even after opening of
his bid mistakenly and his emerging as L-1 bidder, petitioner has no right
to get the work order in his favour. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief in
the facts of the case. He also submitted that the petitioner submitted the
document Annexure P-17 stating that during the currency of licence which
is up to 31.12.2022, vide order dated 16.08.2021, competent authority
ordered for extension of temporary revocation of closure order for a
further period of 6 months based on representation dated 31.03.2021. As
on the date of opening of bid on 19.04.2021, petitioner was not having the
live and valid renewal certificate of the State Pollution Control Board,
hence, the petitioner was rightly not given any work order. There is no
merit in this writ petition.
5. Shri Harshwardhan Parghania, learned counsel for respondent No.4
would submit that as mentioned in clause -13 of the tender document, all
the tenderers were required to furnish valid and effective renewal
certificate issued from the concerned State Pollution Control Board. From
letters dated 27.07.2021 and 09.08.2021, issued by Telangana State
Pollution Control Board, it is very clear that industrial unit of petitioner was
not functional on the date of opening of bids. In support of this contention,
he referred to document Annexure R-4/2, Annexure R-4/3 filed along with
reply. Letter dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure R-4/3) was issued by TSPCB to
respondent No.1 specifically mentioning that the petitioner is not having
valid revocation of closure order since 11.04.2021 till date of issuance of
letter i.e. 09.08.2021. Petitioner is having no case on merits. Hence, the
petition be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. To appreciate the rival
submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, we have perused
the pleadings and documents submitted in support of it by the respective
parties. NIT is filed as Annexure P-2. NIT bears clause-13 mentioning that
tenderers are required to submit live and valid renewal certificate issued
by the State Pollution Control Board mandatorily. Further in clause -20, it
mandates that the tenderer should submit sealed envelopes within the
time prescribed in the office of respondent. In Envelope -B tenderers are
required to submit ten documents as mentioned therein. In clause -20
(4) , it is mentioned that the tenderers have to submit along with other
documents in the sealed cover, the No Objection Certificate and copy of
renewal issued by the State Pollution Control Board. Petitioner along with
the writ petition has submitted document Annexure P-9 and same
document is again submitted as Annexure P-17 which is dated
16.08.2021 issued by the TSPCB. Perusal of the document would show
that consideration before the TSPCB was the representation dated
31.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner for revocation of closure order.
The original closure order was dated 22.06.2019 which was temporarily
revoked by the authority for the period prescribed therein time to time and
the last extension of temporary revocation of closure order was dated
12.10.2020 for a period of six months. It is also appearing in the subhead
'Reference' and in para 5 & 6 of the letter dated 16.08.2021. As per the
last temporary revocation order dated 12.10.2020, petitioner's temporary
revocation of closure order came to an end on 11.04.2021 which is
specifically mentioned by TSPCB in its letter dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure
R-4/3). From the aforementioned facts emerging from the documents
placed on record by the petitioner as well as respondents, it is apparent
that on the date of submission of tender document/bid by the petitioner,
petitioner was not having the live and valid renewal certificate issued by
the State Pollution Control Board.
7. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the mandatory clause of
tender document, petitioner was not eligible for opening of financial bid
and award of work under NIT. Non-entering into the agreement by
respondents with petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary
exercise of their power or by entering into an agreement with respondent
No.4, they have extended any undue benefit or advantage to respondent
No.4. It is to be noted that no infirmity with the bid of the respondent No.4
is alleged by the petitioner.
8. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) which is relied upon by
the petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is for the owner or
employer of the project having authored the tender documents to be the
best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. The
constitutional Court must defer to this understanding and appreciation of
tender documents unless there is mala fide or perversity in the
understanding or appreciation or in the application. It is possible that the
owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender
document that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by
itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
9. In the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that in certain
circumstances such as when the employer acted with malafide or
intended to favour someone, any public interest is affected or the decision
taken is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority acting
reasonably in accordance with law could have reached, the Courts can
interfere with the decision making process of the employer/owner of the
tender document.
10. Present is a case where on the date of submission of tender document
and opening of bid, petitioner was not having the valid and effective
certificate of renewal issued by the State Pollution Control Board, which is
one of the mandatory conditions in the tender document. The tendering
authority found that the petitioner was not eligible as he did not fulfill the
requirement under tender document. It is for the respondent employer to
assess the eligibility of the petitioner in the light of the eligibility criteria
mentioned in the tender document. In view of the above facts of the case,
none of the circumstances as discussed in case of Bakshi Security and
Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is attracted.
11. For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the writ petition
which is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Praveen
