SUMIT BAGADIA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejection of the 'Technical bid' of the Petitioner for the reason that it is not in conformity with the tender conditions insofar as some of the documents were not duly notarised and hence, not acceptable, is put to challenge in this writ petition. The more pertinent legal question involved is whether the disputed documents, admittedly, not bearing the signature of the Notary, but bearing the seal, could be treated as a duly notarised document with reference to the functions of the Notary under Section 8(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') which is more qualified by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act. In other words, when the law is clear, whether the version of the Petitioner that the mistake is only a human error/technical/minor defect {which is sought to be ignored in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273} could be accepted to entertain the relief prayed for causing the price bid to be considered.

(2.) The Petitioner is a transporting contractor. In connection with the tender notified by the 2nd Respondent for transportation of paddy in District Janjgir-Champa, the Petitioner participated in the process by submitting (which was a two way system) the technical bid and price bid separately. The particulars of all the relevant documents including the vehicle particulars and the turnover certificate in terms of the stipulations under tender (Clause 1.3) were to be duly notarised and uploaded. According to the Petitioner, he has satisfied all the requirements and was qualified in all respects, who however came to be disqualified when the price bid was opened on 04.11.2020. Since the reasons were not let known to him, Annexure-P/4 representation was submitted on 13.11.2020, seeking to furnish the reasons for rejecting the technical bid. Contending that the rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner is on minor technical ground and is highly arbitrary, intending to provide unfair and undue advantage to other bidders, the Petitioner has moved this Court by filing the writ petition, also pointing out that the impugned letter rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner was served upon him only on 24.11.2020. Petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-P/1 and also seeks to permit him to participate in the bid process and to cause opening of his financial bid or else to direct the Respondents to initiate the tender process afresh, inviting application from the prospective bidders.

(3.) A return has been filed from the part of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, mainly contending that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and that the precedent sought to be cited by the Petitioner {Poddar Steel (supra)} is not applicable to the case in hand. It is pointed out that the factual circumstance involved in Poddar Steel (supra) clearly shows that the stipulation therein as to satisfaction of EMD either by way of cash or Demand Draft drawn on the State Bank of India was 'incidental' one insofar as the Appellant therein had deposited the Banker's Cheque issued by the Union Bank of India, which by itself was held as cash in view of the relevant provisions of law. It is also pointed out that the very same judgment sought to be relied on by the Petitioner refers to the distinction between the essential conditions and the incidental conditions. Specific reference is also made to relevant provisions under the Act, particularly, Section 8 (1) and (2). The learned counsel also seeks to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Shobikaa Impex Private Limited and Another v. Central Medical Services Society and Others (2016) 16 SCC 233 (paragraphs 19 onwards last paragraph 24) and Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others (2016 (8) SCC 443 (paragraphs 14 to 18).