DINESH CHANDRA PATNI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the decision of the Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited, i.e, respondent No. 2, vide which the petitioner's technical bid, in respect of the tender invited by the respondents for construction of Naugaon to Selakot-Kane-Rikhad-Mehragaon Motor Road, Stage II, under Package No. UT01-05 was rejected, and the respondents proceeded to open the financial bids of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to open the financial bid of the petitioner, and to award the contract to the petitioner. By way of amendment, the petitioner also introduced the relief of quashing of the award of the contract in favor of respondent No. 3 on 17/8/2021.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid construction project, with five years maintenance, was planed to be undertaken under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yogana (PMGSY) in June 2020. For carrying out of the work under the said project, the contractor had to be appointed through a bidding process based on the model standard bidding document as notified for the PMGSY. On 3/7/2021, the tender in question was published by the WAPCOS. The estimated cost of the construction work was Rs.900.27 lakhs, and the estimated cost of maintenance for five years was Rs.82.59 lakhs. The period of completion was stipulated as nine months. The bids were open for On-line submission till 01:00 P.M. on 28/7/2021. The bid opening was fixed on the same day, i.e., 28/7/2021, at 03:00 P.M.

(3.) Under the bidding process, once the technical bids of the bidders were opened, the rival bidders were permitted to raise objections and point out lacunae in the technical bids of the other competitors / bidders. Respondent No. 3, i.e., M/s Bisht Construction, was also one of the bidders and it raised three complaints in respect of the petitioner's technical bid. The petitioner's submission is that these objections were entertained, despite the Bid Evaluation Committee declaring the petitioner and three others, including respondent No. 3, to be qualified in terms of Clause 22.5 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB). The complaints made by respondent No. 3 qua the petitioner's technical bid were considered by the Bid Evaluation Committee, and on that basis, the petitioner was declared to be technically disqualified along with one other bidder. At the end of the said exercise, only two bidders were declared to be technically qualified, namely, M/s Bisht Construction, i.e., respondent No. 3, and M/s Parwatiya Construction. The deficiencies / lacunae pointed out by respondent No. 3 in the petitioner's technical bid, and the decision taken by the Bid Evaluation Committee on those lacunae / complaints, are contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 16/8/2021. The relevant extract of the said minutes reads as follows: