HARIN KUMAR HP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.5 issued a tender notification dtd. 22/12/2023 inviting bids for providing canteen services for a period of one year. In response to the tender document, the petitioner, respondent No.9, and 23 other bidders submitted their bids. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.6, citing non-compliance with Clause 3(vii) of the Additional Terms and Conditions. Consequently, the bids of the other participants were considered, and the financial bid of respondent No.9 was identified as the lowest (L1). Respondent No.9 was declared the successful bidder and has been awarded the contract to operate the canteen, which he has been running since 1/6/2024 in accordance with the contract terms.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the license from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is required to be furnished only after the contract is awarded. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid is contrary to the Additional Terms and Conditions of the tender document. He further asserts that a coordinate bench of this Court, in W.P. No.23396/2023 (decided on 27/1/2023), had granted the petitioner liberty to participate in the ensuing tender. It was directed that the petitioner's bid should be considered without being influenced by the allegations made in the previous petition and objections. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bid on the same set of facts is impermissible.

(3.) Sri Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing respondents No.1 to 8, argued that under Clause 3(vii) of the Additional Terms and Conditions, the petitioner was required to furnish an FSSAI license for seven products. However, the petitioner submitted a license for only one product and, therefore, did not satisfy the requirement. Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid is justified.