Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2488/2022 on 13 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2488 OF 2022
13th OCTOBER, 2022
Between:
M/s Trilok Singh Rawat ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State /
respondent No. 1
: Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 2 to 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The case made out by the petitioner in the writ
petition is that the respondent authorities have incorrectly
declared the technical bid of respondent No. 5 to be
compliant. This submission of the petitioner is premised
on the requirement in the tendering conditions - of bidders
being required to furnish bid security. In this case, the bid
security amount was Rs.56,00,000/-. The petitioner
claimed that respondent No. 5 did not submit the bid
security for Rs.56,00,000/- by furnishing a fixed deposit,
like the petitioner had done.
2
2) Counsel for the respondent authorities points
out that the terms and conditions of the E-tender
document permitted the bidders to submit the bid security
"in the form bid securing declaration (in the format
provided in the Tender Document)" on non-judicial stamp
paper of Rs.100/-. He submits that respondent No. 5 had
opted to fill the form i.e. the bid securing declaration,
instead of furnishing bid security of Rs.56,00,000/-. This
was permitted under the terms of the tender and,
therefore, there is no merit in the petitioner's submission
that respondent No. 5 was technically disqualified. He
further points out that in the present case the technical
bids were opened as early as on 22.06.2022. The
petitioner was aware of the respondent authorities
accepting the technical bid of respondent No. 5 for the
aforesaid reason. However, the petitioner did not
approach this Court till after the opening of the financial
bids on 01.09.2022, when the petitioner realised that
respondent No. 5 had emerged as the lowest bidder. He
submits that the bid offered by the petitioner is rupees
three crores more than that offered by respondent No. 5.
He submits that the bid of respondent No. 5 was accepted
on 14.09.2022, whereas the present petition was preferred
only on 30.09.2022.
3
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner to
submit that though in the uploaded E-tender condition No.
10 was present, in the signed bid document, as issued by
the respondent authorities, the said clause is missing. He
further submits that the petitioner had been raising the
issue with regard to the disqualification of respondent No.
5 with the respondent authorities, but they did not
respond, and did not place reliance on Clause 10 of the E-
tender document. He further submits that in respect of
the two other tenders issued simultaneously, Clause 10
was not included.
4) We have considered the rival submission of the
parties.
5) Firstly, it appears that the petitioner is guilty of
delay and laches in approaching this Court. The technical
bids were opened on 22.06.2022. If the petitioner was
aggrieved by the acceptance of the technical bid of
respondent No. 5, it should have approached this Court
soon after the said date. The petitioner, however, chose
to sit on the fence till the financial bid opening. Only after
he found that the petitioner was not the lowest bidder, and
respondent No. 5 is the lowest bidder, the petitioner
sought to raise the dispute. Even this petition was filed
4
after the acceptance of the bid of respondent No. 5 on
14.09.2022. The financial bid of the petitioner is rupees
three crores more than that offered by respondent No. 5.
6) So far as the submission with regard to Clause
10 is concerned, the fact remains, that the said Clause was
put in public domain by the respondent authorities while
uploading the E-tender document. Respondent No. 5 was,
therefore, justified in relying upon Clause 10 of the E-
tender document, and acting in terms thereof. Even the
petitioner could have done so, if the petitioner so liked.
Respondent No. 5 was not obliged to go to the office of the
respondent authorities to check as to what is the format of
the tender document signed and kept on the file.
Therefore, we do not find any lapse on the part of
respondent No. 5 in acting in terms of Clause 10 of the E-
tender document.
7) For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in
this petition, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
__________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 13th OCTOBER, 2022
Negi
