Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 160 (GAU)

DONGRU SIONGJU v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2017-02-07

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Heard on admission. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 218(AP) of 2014. 2. On 28.01.2014, Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Rural Works Department, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh for construction of Rural Road from Nakhu to Dishing under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) at an estimated cost of Rs. 3932.69 Lac. Total 6 bidders including appellant and Respondent No.7 participated in response to the Notice Inviting Tender. On 18.02.2014, all the bids were opened and technical bids were evaluated on 24.02.2014. The Chairman of Technical Evaluation Committee then informed the bidders about the rejection of technical bids by publishing a notice. The technical bid of appellant was rejected for not providing the required bid validity undertaking. Likewise, bids of some other bidders were also rejected on different grounds. And the bids of only 2 bidders i.e. respondent No.7 and 8 were found to be valid. Therefore, the financial bids of respondent Nos 7 and 8 were opened on 25.02.2014 whereafter, bid of respondent No.7 was found to be L-1. 3. The appellant after rejection of its technical bid immediately withdrew the earnest money deposit as well as original tender papers from the Tender Inviting Rural Works Department. 4. On 05.03.2014, agreement was executed between respondent No.7 and the Department and on the same date, work order was also issued in favour of Respondent No.7. 5. The appellant after about 4 months of the issuance of work order, filed WP(C) NO. 218(AP)/2014 challenging the rejection of its technical bid. The appellant also challenged the decision of Department by which respondent Nos 7 and 8 were found to be technically qualified. 6. The learned Single Judge after calling and examining the original record, has given a specific finding in Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment that the appellant failed to furnish the required undertaking of bid validity. In the result, the learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Bid Evaluation Committee disqualifying the appellant. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant could not dislodge the well reasoned finding of the learned Single Judge that appellant failed to furnish the requisite bid validity undertaking. In the result, the learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Bid Evaluation Committee disqualifying the appellant. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant could not dislodge the well reasoned finding of the learned Single Judge that appellant failed to furnish the requisite bid validity undertaking. This being the situation, the appellant was rightly disqualified by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Also having failed to fulfill the requisite criteria it is not entitled to challenge the award of contract in favour of respondent No.7 [See Raunaq International Limited –vs- I.V.R. Construction Limited, (1999) 1 SCC 492 , Paragraph 27]. Not only this, as mentioned above, the appellant even withdrew its earnest money deposit as well as original tender papers from the Tender Inviting Rural Works Department without any protest much before the filing of writ petition. Moreover, it is stated at the Bar that now more than 50% of the work contract has been completed. For these reasons, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed summarily.