Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 810 (GAU)

Kumar Roadways v. Food Corporation of India

2020-12-11

NANI TAGIA

body2020
ORDER : Nani Tagia, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the FCI, representing all the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the Technical Evaluation Report No. FCI/RO/Cont/HTC/RHBHPN/2018, dated 24.8.2019, whereby the technical bid of the petitioner submitted in pursuance of the NIT dated 30.5.2019, vide No. RH BHPN Bhalukpong/Regular/RTC/041 for appointment of Transportation Contractor from RH Bhalukpong to FSD Bhalukpong, have been rejected as technically not qualified. 3. In pursuance of the NIT dated 30.5.2019, issued by the General Manager (Region), FCI, Regional Office, Itanagar, vide No. RH BHPN Bhalukpong/Regular/RTC/041, for appointment of Transportation Contractor from RH Bhalukpong to FSD Bhalukpong, the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected, vide the impugned order dated 24.08.2019, issued by the AGM(Contract). 4. Apart from rejecting the bid of the petitioner as technically not qualified, as no detail reasons was made known to the petitioner for such rejection, the petitioner had filed a representation on the same day, dated 24.8.2019, asking for the disclosure of the detail reasons for rejection of the petitioner's bid as technically not qualified. As the representation filed was also not responded, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP (C) No. 298 (AP)/2019, which was disposed of by this Court on 02.09.2019, directing the FCI to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.08.2019, within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. In pursuance thereof, the respondent authorities through the General Manager (Region), vide the letter dated 14.09.2019, informed the petitioner that his bid in question was rejected for non furnishing of the Terminal validity date of the UAM (Udyog Aadhar Memorandum) registration as mandated in Clause 14(TV) of MTF (Model Tender Form) of FCI. 5. The writ petitioner has now filed this writ petition contending that there is no validity period of the Terminal validity date of the UAM (Udyog Aadhar Memorandum) registration as contended by the respondent FCI. The petitioner contends that his UARC (Udyog Aadhar Registration Certificate) number is BR26D0045004, registered and commencing from 01.01.2014. The UARC once registered is valid for all times to come and there is no any expiry date. The petitioner contends that his UARC (Udyog Aadhar Registration Certificate) number is BR26D0045004, registered and commencing from 01.01.2014. The UARC once registered is valid for all times to come and there is no any expiry date. The writ petitioner by referring to a letter written to the petitioner by the Assistant Director (EI) of MSME-Development Institute, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise, Government of India, Patliputra Industrial Estate, Patna dated 19.09.2019, vide file No. MSME-DI/PAT/EI/02(04)/2015-139, have contended in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that there is no validity period provided in the UAM Registration Certificate. 6. While answering the contention made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that UAM certificate does not have a validity period, the respondent FCI in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed, have not specifically controverted the contention raised by the writ petitioner. 7. In the absence of such denial by the respondent FCI, specifically controverted the contention of the petitioner that UAM certificate does not have a validity period, the contention of the writ petitioner would have to be accepted as correct and accordingly, the UAM certificate would be held to have no validity period. If that be the case, the reason assigned by the respondent FCI in the impugned Technical Evaluation dated 24.8.2019, rejecting the bid of the petitioner as technically not qualified and the subsequent explanation given vide the letter dated 14.09.2019, written by the General Manager (Region), vide No. FCI/RO/Cont/HTC/RH BHPN-FSD BHPN/2018, indicating the reason for rejecting the bid of the petitioner on account of non furnishing of the Terminal validity date of the UAM (Udyog Aadhar Memorandum) registration as mandated in Clause 14(IV) of MTF (Model Tender Form) of FCI, must be held to be based on nonexistent fact. 8. Resultantly, the rejection of the bid of the petitioner as technically not qualified being passed on nonexistent fact, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court and the same is accordingly hereby interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned Technical Evaluation Report dated 24.08.2019, in so far, it rejects the bid of the petitioner as technically not qualified vide No. FCI/RO/Cont/HTC/RH BHPN-FSD BHPN/2018, issued by the AGM (Contract), is hereby set aside and quashed. 9. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of, in terms above.