Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 344 (UTT)

Trilok Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-10-13

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The case made out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondent authorities have incorrectly declared the technical bid of respondent No. 5 to be compliant. This submission of the petitioner is premised on the requirement in the tendering conditions - of bidders being required to furnish bid security. In this case, the bid security amount was Rs.56,00,000/-. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 5 did not submit the bid security for Rs.56,00,000/- by furnishing a fixed deposit, like the petitioner had done. 2. Counsel for the respondent authorities points out that the terms and conditions of the E-tender document permitted the bidders to submit the bid security “in the form bid securing declaration (in the format provided in the Tender Document)” on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-. He submits that respondent No. 5 had opted to fill the form i.e. the bid securing declaration, instead of furnishing bid security of Rs.56,00,000/-. This was permitted under the terms of the tender and, therefore, there is no merit in the petitioner’s submission that respondent No. 5 was technically disqualified. He further points out that in the present case the technical bids were opened as early as on 22.06.2022. The petitioner was aware of the respondent authorities accepting the technical bid of respondent No. 5 for the aforesaid reason. However, the petitioner did not approach this Court till after the opening of the financial bids on 01.09.2022, when the petitioner realised that respondent No. 5 had emerged as the lowest bidder. He submits that the bid offered by the petitioner is rupees three crores more than that offered by respondent No. 5. He submits that the bid of respondent No. 5 was accepted on 14.09.2022, whereas the present petition was preferred only on 30.09.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner to submit that though in the uploaded E-tender condition No. 10 was present, in the signed bid document, as issued by the respondent authorities, the said clause is missing. He further submits that the petitioner had been raising the issue with regard to the disqualification of respondent No. 5 with the respondent authorities, but they did not respond, and did not place reliance on Clause 10 of the E-tender document. He further submits that the petitioner had been raising the issue with regard to the disqualification of respondent No. 5 with the respondent authorities, but they did not respond, and did not place reliance on Clause 10 of the E-tender document. He further submits that in respect of the two other tenders issued simultaneously, Clause 10 was not included. 4. We have considered the rival submission of the parties. 5. Firstly, it appears that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in approaching this Court. The technical bids were opened on 22.06.2022. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No. 5, it should have approached this Court soon after the said date. The petitioner, however, chose to sit on the fence till the financial bid opening. Only after he found that the petitioner was not the lowest bidder, and respondent No. 5 is the lowest bidder, the petitioner sought to raise the dispute. Even this petition was filed after the acceptance of the bid of respondent No. 5 on 14.09.2022. The financial bid of the petitioner is rupees three crores more than that offered by respondent No. 5. 6. So far as the submission with regard to Clause 10 is concerned, the fact remains, that the said Clause was put in public domain by the respondent authorities while uploading the E-tender document. Respondent No. 5 was, therefore, justified in relying upon Clause 10 of the E-tender document, and acting in terms thereof. Even the petitioner could have done so, if the petitioner so liked. Respondent No. 5 was not obliged to go to the office of the respondent authorities to check as to what is the format of the tender document signed and kept on the file. Therefore, we do not find any lapse on the part of respondent No. 5 in acting in terms of Clause 10 of the E-tender document. 7. For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.