Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubh Bangles Through Proprietor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28972
1 WA-2215-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2215 of 2024
SHUBH BANGLES THROUGH PROPRIETOR CHANCHAL RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sonal Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondentS/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This writ appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by the
appellant challenging the order dated 04.09.2024 whereby the writ petition
No. 10479/2024 has been dismissed by the writ Court and the order dated
08.04.2024 passed by the Collector (Lok Seva Prabandhan), District Dewas
has been upheld.
Facts of the case in short are as under :
2. Respondent No. 2/Secretary issued an NIT dated 27.12.2023 for
inviting application for allotment of various Lok Seva Kendra (LSK) in the
District Dewas. The appellant participated in the said process by submitting
online tender on 18.01.2024 for the Lok Seva Kendra situated at Sonkatch,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28972
2 WA-2215-2024
District Dewas. Apart from LSK Sonkatch, appellant disclosed its intention
to apply for the LSKs at Tonk Khurd and Udaynagar in District Dewas.
After scrutiny of all the documents and considering the objections of the
bidders, an eligibility list was published on 05.03.2024. All the successful
bidders were directed to remain present for participation in the lottery to be
drawn for allotment of the LSKs. The appellant was selected for the LSK
Sonkachh. He was given possession of the LSK in Sonkachh.
3. After sometime, the appellant was served with a show cause notice
dated 21.03.2024 calling upon him to explain as to why he made a
misrepresentation in his application form that he submitted bids for LSKs at
Sonkachh, Tonk Khurd and Udaynagar but did not submit any bids for two
LSKs. The appellant submitted a reply to the show-cause notice contending
that there is no misrepresentation on his part as for remaining two LSKs, due
to technical glitch, he could not submit the bids. The reply was not found
satisfactory by the authorities and vide impugned order dated 08.04.2024, the
bid of the appellant was cancelled. Being aggrieved, appellant filed the writ
petition. After issuance of notice, respondents filed their reply to the
petition.
4. Considering the grounds raised in the petition and the reply filed
by the respondents, the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition
holding that the petitioner (appellant herein) gave wrong information about
submission of bids for three LSKs and submitted the bid only for one LSK,
therefore, in view of the powers conferred under Clause 2.16.3 of the
Request for Proposal (RFP), the respondent/Collector has rightly cancelled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28972
3 WA-2215-2024
the bid of the appellant.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ appeal has
been filed by the appellant inter alia contending that Clause 2.1.2 of the RFP
only prescribes the maximum limit for submitting the bids i.e. three LSKs
and therefore it is a choice of the bidder to either apply for one, two or three
LSKs.
6. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that initially appellant had decided to submit bids for three LSKs but
due to the technical glitch, he could not submit bids for the remaining two
locations which cannot be termed as misrepresentation for the purpose of
disqualification.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
respondent had also raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition
due to availability of remedy by way of arbitration before the
Commissioner. It is further contended that a bare perusal of Clause 2.21(d)
of the RFP entails causes for rejection of the bids including incomplete and
unclear declaration in the tender documents. Therefore, the learned writ
Court has rightly dismissed the petition and no interference is called for in
the present writ appeal.
8. Heard the rival contention of the parties.
9. Clause 2.1.1 of the General Terms of bidding restricts that no
bidder shall submit more than one bid for the project. As per Clause 2.1.2, a
bidder shall apply for maximum three LSKs in a District and can become a
selected bidder for maximum three LSKs in a District at a time. It further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28972
4 WA-2215-2024
provides that in case the bidder is not chosen as selected bidder in any or less
than three LSKs then, the bidder can apply for other LSK in the same
District. Bidders are not restricted from applying in other Districts of the
State, however, a bidder shall not be awarded more than three LSKs per
District in the State at a time. Therefore, as per Clause 2.1.2, there is a
maximum limit of allotment of three LSKs to the bidder in one District at a
time and if a bidder is selected for less than three LSKs, then he is permitted
to apply for other LSK in the same District. He is also permitted to apply in
other District of the State but he shall not be awarded more than three LSKs
per District in the same State at a time. There is no minimum limit
prescribed for applying of the LSK. The bidder can apply for one, two or
three LSK as per his choice and capacity. Even if he applies for three LSKs,
he can be selected for one or two LSK because the allotment is by way of
drawing a lot among the eligible bidders. The list of eligible bidders are
liable to be prepared after evaluating the qualification and disqualification of
the documents submitted along with the bid. Clause 2.14.3.1 of the RFP
permits the bidder to modify, substitute or withdraw the bids after
submission prior to the bid due date. As per Clause 2.20.8, if any bidder is
selected in more than one LSK, then the bidder must submit Performance
Bank Guarantee of Rs. One Lakh for each number of LSKs separately.
Therefore, it is not mandatory that if bidder submits a bid for three LSKs, he
would be selected for all three of them.
10. Even if the appellant gave a declaration that he would be
applying for three LSKs, but later on submitted bid for only one LSK, that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28972
5 WA-2215-2024
will not lead to his disqualification due to incorrect or false information or
material misrepresentation. After selection of the bidder, the authority may
reject a bid, withdraw the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) or terminate the
Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the case may be only on the ground of
fraud and or any corrupt practices as given in Clause 4 - Fraud and Corrupt
Practices of the RFP. Further, Clause 2.16 i.e. Right to Accept or Reject any
or all of the Bids was not exercised by the competent authority at the relevant
point of time. The name of the appellant was included in the list of eligible
bidders and he was selected by way of draw. Therefore, the Collector has
wrongly passed the order rejecting the bid of the appellant.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the writ court is
hereby set aside. Resultantly, the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the
Collector is hereby quashed. By virtue of the interim order passed in the writ
petition, appellant is operating the Lok Seva Kendra, Sonkachh hence,
remaining formalities be completed by the respondents in favour of the
appellant.
12. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
