S.S. Services Providers vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 8820 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

S.S. Services Providers vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 April, 2024

Author: Arun Palli

Bench: Arun Palli

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056586
                                                                2024:PHHC: 056586



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
                                                  CWP-9319-2024
                                       Date of Decision: 25.04.2024

S.S. Services Providers
                                                                       ....Petitioner
                                Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                     ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:    Mr. Ribhav Singla, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jastej Singh, D.A.G., Punjab
            for respondents No.1 and 2.

            Mr. Aayush Arora, Advocate
            for respondents No.3 to 5.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a service provider registered with the

Government of India and is stated to be involved in the trade of providing

manpower services to various establishments.

2. It is essentially aggrieved of the Technical Evaluation Report dated

14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4) vide which it was held to be technically non-

responsive and the order dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) vide which, in

pursuance to directions issued by this Court in CWP-7070-2024 on 22.03.2024,

the respondents again rejected the claim of the petitioner and held it to be

technically non-responsive. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the issuance of

work order to the private respondents i.e. respondents No.6 and 7.

3. Respondent No.3 floated an e-tender on 16.02.2024 (published on

17.02.2024) (Annexure P-2) for providing services of different categories in

various offices of Punjab Mandi Board and Market Committees in the State of

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056586

2024:PHHC: 056586

Punjab and Chandigarh.

3.1 The bids were to be submitted w.e.f. 17.02.2024 (02.00 PM) to

11.03.2024 (11.00 AM) and were to be opened on 11.03.2024 (03.00 PM).

3.2 The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 10.03.2024,

submitted its bid with all relevant documents (Annexure P-3).

3.3 However, vide order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), the technical

committee, upon evaluation of the bids, held the petitioner firm to be non-

responsive.

3.4 Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, representation dated 15.03.2024

(Annexure P-5) was submitted. Since no response was received, CWP-7070-2024

was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Bench on 22.03.2024

(Annexure P-7) with a direction to the authorities concerned to look into the

matter and pass a speaking order.

3.5 In compliance of the directions of this Court, respondent No.3 passed

order dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) again rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

3.6 It has been averred that the petitioner had duly submitted all

documents except for the data for the financial year 2023-2024 as the financial

year was duly in progress. Other documents with regard to deposit of EPF etc.

were submitted, but the requisite details concerning EPF and ESI for the months

of February and March 2024 could not be submitted since the financial year was

in progress.

3.7 It has also been averred that the financial bid submitted by the

successful bidders was in fact slightly higher than that submitted by the petitioner.

3.8 Reference in the averments has also been made to certain receipts

generated by the Employee's Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) evidencing

inspection up to January 2024 (Annexure P-9).

3.9 It has also been averred that the manpower with respondents No.6

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056586

2024:PHHC: 056586

and 7 is less than that with the petitioner since the petitioner has 1178 persons

whereas respondents No.6 and 7 have much less manpower and failed to satisfy

the threshold limit of 950 persons.

3.10 The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of the orders vide which the

petitioner has been declared to be technically non-responsive and the work has

been awarded to respondents No.6 and 7.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned

counsel representing the respondents, who caused appearance on advance notice

having been served.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that he had

all the requisite documents barring a few documents which were not available

with him on account of the financial year being in progress and he had also sought

time from the Committee to furnish the said documents, but no time was granted.

Learned counsel has referred to Clause 2 (g) of the Standard Bidding Document

(Annexure P-2) and the documents submitted by him alongwith his bid. Specific

reference has been made to the documents from page 86 onwards. Learned

counsel has submitted that it was mentioned in Clause 2 (g) that the 'pay roles'

were to be submitted instead of 'pay rolls' and, therefore, the petitioner gave the

experience certificate and the details of the manpower. The deduction of EPF and

ESI alongwith inception reports till January 2024 were submitted as the details of

the subsequent period were not available on account of the financial year being in

progress. Learned counsel made strenuous efforts to convince the Court that he

has been wrongly non-suited and that the impugned order now passed in

pursuance to the directions issued by this Court is also cryptic and, therefore,

deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that

the orders are legal and valid and call for no interference.

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056586

2024:PHHC: 056586

7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, we find the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to be

devoid of merit. The Standard Bidding Document (Annexure P-2) contains Clause

2 (g) which lays down as under:

"The bidder must provide pay roles of the working

manpower and deduction of ESI and EPF along with

inception reports of financial year 2023-2024."

There is no provision in the standard bidding document providing for any time to

be granted to the bidders for completing any incomplete documents. As per

Clause 2 (g), the bidder was to provide the 'pay rolls' of the working manpower

and deduction of ESI and EPF alongwith the inception reports of financial year

2023-2024. As per the own case of the petitioner, he did not provide the 'pay

rolls' for the petitioner misread the provision and provided the experience

certificates on account of the alleged spelling error. This, however, would not be a

ground for the petitioner to even suggest that it was not aware as to what 'pay

rolls' are. If the petitioner had adequate manpower, nothing prevented it from

submitting the 'pay rolls' as had been demanded in the bid conditions and if there

was some confusion, a clarification could have been sought before submitting the

bid. Not only this, even the inception reports etc. were not complete. The

petitioner was, therefore, rightly held to be technically non-responsive vide order

dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4). Subsequently, in pursuance of directions issued

by this Court on 22.03.2024 in CWP-7070-2024, order dated 29.03.2024

(Annexure P-8) was passed , which also mentions that the documents were

incomplete. It has also been noticed in the said order that the partner of the

petitioner firm had appeared before the authority and had stated that he be granted

one opportunity to provide the documents which had been found short. This,

itself, shows that the documents submitted by the petitioner were incomplete. The

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056586

2024:PHHC: 056586

authorities, therefore, did not commit any error in holding the petitioner and one

other participant to be technically non-responsive.

8. It is well settled that the authority calling the tender is the best judge

as regards the conditions prescribed in the tender as was held by the Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others' (2000) 5 SCC

287. It is also well settled that the scope of interference in tender or contractual

matters is very limited though exercise of power of judicial review is not

completely barred especially where essential conditions mentioned in the tender

documents are not adhered to. Reference may be made to the judgment of

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India', (1994)

(6) SCC 651.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed above as also

the settled position of law, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition

and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(ARUN PALLI)                                             (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
   JUDGE                                                       JUDGE


25.04.2024
Prince Chawla
                      Whether speaking/reasoned :              Yes/No.
                      Whether reportable :                     Yes/No.




                                         5 of 5