Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1640 (ALL)

Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. State of U. P.

2014-05-20

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The petitioners, who are intending bidders, seek relief to the effect that their tender should not be rejected for failure to file the originals of the solvency certificate and character certificate together with the bid document. The petitioners have submitted that this condition causes serious hardship where a bidder may have submitted bids in response to a number of tender notices and consequently the filing of attested copies together with an affidavit should be treated as sufficient. 2. In a judgment of this Court in Rajnath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1 the following observations were made by a Division Bench : - "By this writ petition, the petitioner has raised a practical difficulty in producing the original character certificate and solvency certificate (Form T-4 and Form T-5) along with each tender. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that condition No.2.5 of the 'instructions to bidders (ITB)' issued to bidders along with tender form provides that character certificate and solvency certificate are to be filed in original. He submits that advertisement dated 28.08.2012, issued by the Public Works Department, Mau provides for filing Form T-4 and Form T-5 in original whereas in the notice inviting tender published on 22.09.2012 from the office of Public Works Department, Allahabad provides that certified copy of character and solvency certificates be filed along with declaration on affidavit that these certificates are valid. We find substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that filing of original certificates will restrict the bidder to only one bid, which some time gets extended. A person cannot be restricted to submit bid, if he is a registered contractor and has valid certificates, in response to only one notice inviting bids. In order to resolve the difficulty, which is being faced by contractors, we provide that the respondents shall not insist upon filing of the character certificate and solvency certificate in original along with the bid document. They may file attested true copies of these documents along with an affidavit verifying that these two documents are valid. The competent authority, will however insist upon production of these certificates at the time of opening the bids, for comparing it with the original. If the competent authority is not satisfied, he may reject the bid on the ground of non-production of these certificates." 3. The competent authority, will however insist upon production of these certificates at the time of opening the bids, for comparing it with the original. If the competent authority is not satisfied, he may reject the bid on the ground of non-production of these certificates." 3. The same view has been followed in several other cases including the judgment of this Bench in Shriram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others2. 4. In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition by directing the respondents that they shall not insist upon the filing of a character certificate and solvency certificate in original together with the bid documents. The bidders may file attested true copies of these documents together with an affidavit verifying that the said documents are valid. The competent authority shall, however, insist upon production of the original certificates at the time of opening of the bids. If the authorities are not satisfied upon comparison with the originals, the bid may be rejected for non-production of these certificates at that stage. We clarify that these directions shall govern those cases only where the last date for submission of the bid has not expired and where the last date has already expired, this order shall not require the re-opening of the process. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.