Delhi High Court
M/S Sunshine Enterprises vs Indian Council For Agricultural ... on 5 February, 2018
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 05.02.2018
+ W.P.(C) 8051/2017 and CM APPLS.33142/2017 & 47466/2017
M/S SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Amit Anand
Tiwari and Mr. Shashwat Singh,
Advs.
versus
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ARGICULTURAL RESEARCH
..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
%
The petitioner had responded to a tender issued by the Indian
Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), calling for bids for the
purpose of awarding the contract for security services at its premises
NASC Complex and Krishi Vihar Colony. The tender was through a
two bids process (technical and financial bid). The petitioner's
grievance is that its bid was rejected on the alleged ground that it has
not furnished particulars to indicate fulfilment of essential eligibility
criteria.
2. The respondent, ICAR, in its notice inviting tender (NIT) of
July, 2017, indicated the last date of submission of bid as 17.8.2017.
The bids were to be opened on 18.8.2017 and were valid for 90 days
thereafter. Other conditions such as furnishing of security deposit etc.
were prescribed. Clause 7 of the NIT dealt with the submission of
essential documents for technical evaluation. Clause 7(vii) stated :
"Documentary proof of minimum 100 nos. (Security
Guards/Supervisors) registered under ESl &EPF".
3. The petitioner's bid claimed that it had work force of over 400
security guards and that, it answered all the technical eligibility
conditions. In support of the bid, the petitioner furnished various
documents and also declared copies of such documents to be true and
correct. However, ICAR rejected its bid. In the counter affidavit filed
by ICAR, it is contended that the documents submitted by the
petitioner no way supported its claim, that over 100 security
guards/supervisors were registered under the Employees State
Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The petitioner's claim is that the list
provided in support of its tender mentioned the names, ESI
registration number, as well as, EPF registration number of each
employee/security guard.
4. Further to this Court's directions, the respondent produced the
original file. A perusal of the file would indicate that 20 bidders had
submitted their tenders; 6 bids were rejected on the ground that the
documents furnished were not technically complied with. The Tender
Evaluation Report of the ICAR, prepared by a committee formed for
the purpose, was also shown to this Court. The "checklist of technical
evaluation of bids for providing security guards" lists various criteria
of eligibility and other minimum conditions spelt out in the NIT.
These are 11 in number. In relation to the petitioner, the Committee
noted that it had not provided "documentary proof of minimum 100
numbers (security guards/supervisors) registered under ESI." On an
overall consideration of the technical evaluation report of the tender
committee and a comparison of the documents furnished by the
petitioner in support of its bid, it is quite evident that with respect to
ESI details, the petitioner only provided a list alongwith relevant
registration numbers. However, as far as employees provident fund's
registration and compliance is concerned, the petitioner itself adopted
a different approach-like in the case of all others (who went by the
same approach for both ESI & EPF document) i.e. furnished the
relevant details of actual payments made for the concerned month
proximate to the bid, duly sourced from the website of ESI. Having
regard to this fact i.e. the respondent ICAR adopted a uniform
approach in judging and evaluating the tenders and the supporting
documents, its decision to deem the petitioner's bid as non-compliant,
in the opinion of the Court, is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The
petitioner's argument that there was no specific consequence, in the
absence of a given bidder providing specific documents in such
regard, in the Court's opinion, is not persuasive. If the primary
material i.e. in the form of list of employees and the details of
payments made to them both in respect of ESI and EPF were available
to others, surely the petitioner too could have sourced it likewise. Its
omission to do so, deemed to be non-compliant, is based upon a
reasonable interpretation of the tender conditions, which can hardly
fall under Article 226, given its circumscribed mandate.
5. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that there is
no merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed. All the pending
applications also stand disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
rc
