SUPER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3044 of 2018 dated 10.04.2019 dismissing the writ petitions.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellantwrit petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction of roads. The Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency (for short the "URRDA") invited bids for construction of certain roads under the "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana". An advertisement was issued, by the respondent-Department on 18.07.2018, inviting bids from qualified bidders for construction of motorable roads in the rural areas of Uttarakhand. While the advertisement listed 39 projects, the appellant-writ petitioner submitted their bids for six such projects in different districts of Uttarakhand. The bid process involved two stages. The first stage was the technical bid evaluation, and those who qualified at this stage were subjected to financial evaluation at the second stage. In terms of the notice inviting tender, applicants were required to furnish details of their qualifications including, among others, their turn-over, their financial status and litigation history.

(3.) The appellant-writ petitioners bids' were rejected, at the stage of technical evaluation, on the ground that they had failed to disclose the fact that they had instituted Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3006 of 2017 against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 before the Uttarakhand High Court. Questioning the rejection of their bids on this ground, the appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court resulting in the orders under appeal being passed by the learned single Judge. In the orders under appeal, the learned single Judge, after extracting Clause 4.7 of the Standard Bidding Document (for short the "SBD"), observed that a bidder could be disqualified if he had made any misleading or false representation in the form, or he had not stated that he had a litigation history.