ROOP SINGH KATHAYAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'U.R.R.D.A') has been entrusted with the task of construction and maintenance of motor roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (for short 'P.M.G.S.Y.'). U.R.R.D.A. invited tenders for different works of construction and maintenance of roads by issuing notice from time to time. Roop Singh Kathayat and Girdhar Singh Adhikari (petitioners in the two writ petitions) and Laxmi Datt Binwal (private respondent in both the writ petitions) responded to the tender notice. Technical bid submitted by both the petitioners have been declared to be responsive by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the technical bid of the private respondent too was declared to be responsive, therefore, petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the decision to declare bid of private respondent as responsive.

(2.) The decision taken by Technical Evaluation Committee in favour of private respondent has been challenged on two grounds:

(3.) Before going into merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners, this Court reminds itself of its limits in dealing with such matters. It is settled law that the owner or employer of a project, who has authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate the requirements and interpret its documents. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, has held that even if an interpretation to the tender document given by owner/employer of the project is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts, but that by itself will not be sufficient reason for interfering with the interpretation given. Paragraph nos. 11 to 15 of the said judgment are extracted below: