Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 14 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1636 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010100172021




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/3225/2021

         VEDANG RADIO TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, AND ANR
         308, EVERSHINE MALL, CHINCHOLI BUNDER, MIND SPACE, LINK ROAD,
         MALAD (WEST) MUMBAI, 400064
         A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF SALES
         AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, MR. PARTHA PRATIM DAS,
         308, EVERSHINE MALL, CHINCHOLI BUNDER, MIND SPACE, LINK ROAD,
         MALAD (WEST) MUMBAI, 400064

         2: PARTHA PRATIM DAS

          S/O LATE AKSHOY KUMAR DAS

         308
          EVERSHINE MALL
          CHINCHOLI BUNDER
          MIND SPACE
          LINK ROAD
          MALAD (WEST) MUMBAI
          40006

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 14 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPT. DISPUR GWUAHATI 781006

         2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

          ASSAM ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI
          KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

         3:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION)
         ASSAM ULUBARI
                                                        Page No.# 2/7

GUWAHATI
KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

4:SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION)
ASSAM ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

5:DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN.)
ASSAM ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

6:M/S TRIGYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
 27
 SDF-1
 SEEPZ-SEZ
ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400094

7:M/S RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
 CHATTERJEE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
 16TH FLOOR
 33A JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
 KOLKATA
 700071

8:M/S UNICOM INFOTEL PVT. LTD.
 INDRADHANUSH 5TH FLOOR
 PLOT 36
 UNIT NO. 501
 PRIMARE TOWER
 BLOCK DN
 SECTOR V. SALT LAKE
 KOLKATTA
 700091

9:TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS IN
TERM OF RFP DATED 04.01.2020
 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PRASANTA SAIKIA
 DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN.) ASSAM ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

10:SHRI ASWANI NARZARI SP(C)
 HQ-I
APRO
 HQ
 MEMBER
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
                                                        Page No.# 3/7

IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

11:SHRI CHITTARANJAN OJHA
 SP(C)
 HQ-II
 APRO
 HQ
 MEMBER
 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

12:SHRI BIRAJ DAS
 SP(C)
 HQ-IV
 APRO
 HQ
 MEMBER
 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

13:MANASH PRATIM SARMA
 MEMBER
 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
 KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

14:PRASANTA BORGOHAIN
 MEMBER
 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
ULUBARI
 GUWAHATI
                                                                       Page No.# 4/7

             KAMRUP M ASSAM 781007

            15:DR. KANDARPA KUMAR SARMA

             MEMBER
             TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS
            IN TERM OF RFP DATED 04/01/2020 TO BE REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
            OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM
            ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI
             KAMRUP M ASSAM 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. U K NAIR

Advocate for the Respondent : SR, GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

07.07.2021

The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1-5.

3. This writ petition pertains to a competitive bidding process initiated by a Request for Proposal ('RFP', for short) published by the office of the respondent no. 3, the Additional Director General of Police (Communication) Assam ('ADGP', for short) on 04.01.2020 for selection of a System Integrator for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Video Conferencing Equipments upto Police Stations level in Assam. Subsequent to the RFP, a corrigendum came to be issued on 03.02.2020 whereby some amendments were made in the original Page No.# 5/7

RFP. In response to said RFP, 5 (five) nos. of bidders submitted their bids.

4. A litigation, in the form of a writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 2066/2020, ensued in the meantime and the said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 21.01.2021. It is not necessary at this stage to advert to the said litigation.

5. After the evaluation of the bids at the pre-qualification stage, 4 (four) nos. of bids were found responsive for the technical evaluation stage. A PowerPoint presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution and a Demonstration on Proof of Concept were parts of the technical bid evaluation stage.

6. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the process adopted by the respondent authorities at the technical bid evaluation stage.

7. Mr. Nair, amongst other contentions, has contended two aspects which, according to him, have vitiated the evaluation process. Firstly, the Power Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution was held on 16.02.2021, 17.02.2021 and 18.02.2021 where all the four bidders had made their presentations. Thereafter, the Demonstration on Proof of Concept was held on 02.03.2021. It is his submission that the Technical Committee comprising of a number of members including two external experts, had attended the Power Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution as well as Demonstration on Proof of Concept. But the two external expert members had not evaluated the technical bids of the bidders, as they had opted out of the process. As the originally inducted two external expert members had declined to be a part of the Technical Committee, the Technical Committee came to be re- constituted with the induction of two new external expert members and the technical bids of the four bidders were evaluated by the re-constituted Technical Page No.# 6/7

Committee and the marks were only awarded by them. It is his contention that since the two newly inducted external expert members had not attended the Power Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution as well as Demonstration on Proof of Concept but had awarded marks for the same, the same has vitiated the entire process. Secondly, he has submitted, by referring to the communication dated 03.07.2021, received pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner, that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 had not met the technical specifications prescribed by the RFP and as such, the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 could not have been declared responsive at the technical evaluation stage and in such situation, their commercial bids could not have been opened for evaluation.

8. Mr. Nath has submitted that although the two newly inducted external expert members had not attended the Power Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution and Demonstration on Proof of Concept but they had gone through the video recordings of Power Point presentation and Demonstration on Proof of Concept and as such, the first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner appears to be not a valid ground. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 have met the technical specification criteria mentioned in the RFP and the deficiencies in their bids, sought to be highlighted by the petitioner, were merely optional.

9. It has been submitted at the bar that though the process of evaluation has been completed in the meantime, no final decision has been taken till date.

10. In view of the rival contentions made above, this Court is not issuing any notice at this stage to the other respondents as Mr. Nath has agreed to produce the relevant records of evaluation before the Court and/or to bring the relevant aspects regarding the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, as noted Page No.# 7/7

above, by way of an affidavit.

11. List the case on 19.07.2021 in order to enable Mr. Nath to produce the relevant records and/or file an affidavit on the aspects, as mentioned above.

12. It is observed that till the next date of listing, no final decision with regard to awarding of the contract in relation to the RFP shall be made.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant