Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Chaudhary Sandeep Contractor ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 251 OF 2023
16TH OCTOBER, 2023
M/s Chaudhary Sandeep Contractor & Supplier .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Xitiz Kaushik, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh,
learned Additional Advocate
General.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present order is being passed in continuation of
the order dated 19.09.2023. The said order reads as follows:-
"1. Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent
no. 1.
3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.
2 to 5.
4. Mr. Joshi has tendered instructions. The submission
of Mr. Joshi is that there were eight bidders in all, and several
of them corrected their financial bids after the issuance of the
Corrigendum dated 10.08.2023.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in respect of
one of the items in the Bill of Quantities, namely at Sl. No.
222 - Sculptures for Yoga Park, the quantity initially indicated
was 21, which, by the aforesaid Corrigendum, was reduced to
01. However, in the computer system of the respondents, the
figure continued to be 21, inasmuch as, when the petitioner
tendered its rates for one item, the figure got multiplied by
21. That is how the petitioner's financial bid, in respect of
Item No. 222 - Sculptures for Yoga Park, got inflated by 21
times, and the petitioner has been ousted on the ground of
not being the L1 bidder.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that, if the petitioner's bid for Item No. 222 is reduced 21
times, the petitioner would emerge as the L1 bidder.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi, on instructions, states
that, even if the said exercise is undertaken, the petitioner
would not be the L1 bidder.
8. The declaration of the financial bid result is in
Annexure No. 5, as per which the L1 bidder has quoted an
amount of Rs. 4,37,06,771.67.
9. We direct the respondents to produce the financial
bid of the petitioner, and also to provide the necessary
calculation, reducing the cost of the Item at Sl. No. 22 by 21
times, with the amount stated to have been quoted by the
petitioner. The said calculation be produced on the next date.
10. List on 26.09.2023.
11. Interim order to continue till the next date of
listing."
2. The respondents have since filed their counter-
affidavit. In Paragraph Nos.11 and 12, the respondents have
stated as follows:-
"11. That perusal of the said list shall reveal that for item
showed at serial no.222 the petitioner quoted an amount of INR
38,38,66,686/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Sixty
Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Six) only for 21 items. The
said amount was for 21 sculptures which is admittedly a
typographical error on behalf of the answering respondents.
Therefore, on dividing the aforesaid amount by 21, we will get the
cost for 1 sculpture. Hence the amount quoted by the petitioner
for 1 sculpture is 38,38,66,686 ÷ 21 = 1,82,79,366/- (Rupees
One Crore Eighty Two Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Three
Hundred and Sixty Six) only.
12. That it is pertinent to mention that even after adding
the correct bid amount for item at serial no.222 to the bid amount
of the remaining items quoted by the petitioner, his total bid for
the tender would be INR 4,84,04,069.22/- (Rupees Four Crore
Eighty Four Lakhs Four Thousand Sixty Nine Rupees and Twenty
Two Paisa) only which still makes the petitioner L2 bidder because
the said amount is greater than the amount quoted by Shri Balaji
Enterprises which is INR 4,37,06,771.67/- (Rupees Four Crore
Thirty Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One
and Sixty Seven Paisa). For the kind perusal of the court a table is
placed regarding the same.
12.1 That table below contains the details of all the 3 bid
submitted by the bidders on the official portal of the answering
respondents.
Sr. Bidders Bid Amount Bid Rank (L1 is
No. the winner)
1. Shri Balaji Enterprises INR L1
4,37,06,771.67/-
2. Cox Infrastructure Pvt. INR 49114620.93/- L2
Ltd.
3. M/s Chaudhary INR 413991389.22/- L3
Sandeep Contractor &
Supplier (Petitioner)
12.2 That the table below contains the list of bidders after the
compliance of the order dated 19.09.2023 of this Hon'ble Court.
Sr. Bidders Bid Amount Bid Rank (L1 is
No. the winner)
1. Shri Balaji Enterprises INR L1
4,37,06,771.67/-
2. M/s Chaudhary INR L2
Sandeep Contractor & 4,84,04,069.22/-
Supplier (Petitioner)
3. Cox Infrastructure Pvt. INR 49114620.93/- L3
Ltd.
3. The respondents have tabulated the emerging
position with regard to the financial bids received from the
technically qualified bidders, which shows that even after
dividing the petitioner's quotation in respect of Sl. No. 222 by
21, the petitioner still remains the L2 bidder, and one Shri
Balaji Enterprises has emerged as the L1 bidder.
4. Aforesaid being the position, no useful purpose
would be served in proceeding further in this writ petition.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 16th October, 2023
NISHANT
