Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1915 (RAJ)

Lalit Pharmaceuticals v. State of Rajasthan

2009-09-03

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the process under the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) dated 27.11.2008 that was issued by the respondent No.3 for supply of lab chemicals, reagents and other items. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of sale of diagnostic kits, reagents, and all pathology equipments; and pursuant to the NIT dated 27.11.2008, the petitioner purchased the tender form on 09.01.2009 and deposited the same on the same date, i.e., 09.01.2009 along with the required pay order for Rs. 60,000/- while giving technical as well as financial bids. It is alleged that the tenders were opened on 12.01.2009 and the petitioner's tender came to be rejected without assigning any reason; and despite making requests, the reasons for rejection were not communicated. According to the petitioner, its tender was submitted after completing all the formalities and rejection thereof without assigning any reason and without opportunity of hearing remains unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner has also questioned the conditions stated in the NIT that the tender could be rejected without assigning any reasons as being arbitrary and illegal. 3. This writ petition was entertained by this Court on 16.02.2009 and, while issuing notices, the respondents were restrained from finalising the matter with regard to the allotment of the contract in question. 4. The respondents have submitted a reply essentially with the submissions that the petitioner has not submitted its tender in the original format as required under the NIT dated 27.11.2008; and as per Rule 48 (v) of the General Finance and Accounts Rules, the tender of the petitioner could not have been considered. It is submitted that under the NIT in question, the tenders were invited for three categories out of which, the petitioner submitted the tender for category No.1 where for the only requirement was of submission of financial bid and there was no need for technical proposal/bid and hence, the allegation of the petitioner of rejection of the technical bid is totally baseless. However, it is submitted that the cause for rejecting the tender of the petitioner had been that the same was not submitted in the prescribed format in original. 5. However, it is submitted that the cause for rejecting the tender of the petitioner had been that the same was not submitted in the prescribed format in original. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the tender was submitted as per the form given and then, it was specifically stated in the letter accompanying the bid that all the rules and regulations of the tender shall be followed. Thus, according to the petitioner, there was sufficient compliance and there was no such mistake or error wherefor the petitioner's rates were not considered by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the tender form and deposited a substantial amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards earnest money that was clearly indicative of his being ready and willing to adhere to all the requirements of the tender notice. It is also submitted that the reasons for rejection of the tender were neither precisely stated nor communicated to the petitioner; and the representation made by the petitioner still remains pending. It has also been suggested during the course of arguments that the rates given by the petitioner in respect of various items being competitive and rather lower than the rates offered by the other tenderers, there was no reason that the rates as offered by the petitioner were not considered. 6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that per Rule 48 (v) of the General Finance and Accounts Rules, the tender of the petitioner was not to be considered when not filed in the prescribed form. It is also submitted that there was no technical bid in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner submitted the rates only regarding item No.1 of the NIT, i.e., supply of chemicals, wherefor no technical bid was required. During the course of submissions, the original tender documents as submitted by the petitioner and so also as submitted by the other tenderer have been placed for perusal by the respondent before the Court with the concerning case file wherein the received tenders were considered on 16.01.2009 and the tender as submitted by the petitioner was ordered to be rejected for being not in the prescribed form. 7. 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record and so also the material placed for perusal, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 8. The fact that the petitioner omitted to submit the tender in the prescribed format remains rather indisputable. The petitioner has placed on record photostat of the receipt of the amount deposited by him for purchase of tender copy and so also the demand draft in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- as Annexure- 2 and then, has placed on record photostat of the tender said to have been submitted on its behalf containing 21 pages. The said demand draft and so also the pages carrying description of items, said to be of tender form, were indeed available with the respondents as shown before the Court; however, the petitioner did not submit the original of the tender form containing 8 pages of the conditions of the contract and so also other 3 pages carrying, inter alia, the declaration by the tenderer. Of course, the petitioner annexed a cryptic letter stating his own terms and conditions that VAT would be charged extra, that supply would be made within 30- 45 days, the rates would be F.O.R hospital store, and that the petitioner would follow all the rules and regulations of the tender but such a letter could not have been taken as a valid substitute of the original tender form that was carrying, inter alia, the conditions of contract, which were definitely required to be signed by the tenderer. 9. For the reasons best known to itself, the petitioner chose not to submit such essential documents with its offer and for such omission on the part of the petitioner, the respondents cannot be faulted if they had refused to consider its tender. 10. The submission regarding non-supply of reasons are of no effect in the facts and circumstances of the present case when indisputable it is that the petitioner did not submit the tender as required. 11. The suggestion as made by the petitioner during the course of arguments that its rates are competitive and are lesser on certain items is again of no effect when the petitioner had not validly submitted its rates. 11. The suggestion as made by the petitioner during the course of arguments that its rates are competitive and are lesser on certain items is again of no effect when the petitioner had not validly submitted its rates. In any case, as to what rates are to be accepted is a matter for the consideration of the authorities concerned and in the given fact situation, the petitioner cannot be conceded a right to question the further proceedings by the respondents under the NIT in question. 12. This writ petition remains totally bereft of substance; and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 13. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand).Writ Petition Dismissed as Above. *******