DALIP SINGH ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common, therefore, all the three writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 09.11.2018 respondent no. 2 issued a notice inviting tenders for construction of different roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yojna. Petitioner submitted his bids for four roads mentioned at serial nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. On 04.12.2018, Technical Bids were opened and on 11.12.2018 final decision was taken. Bid Evaluation Committee rejected the bids of the petitioner. As per provisions of the Standard Bidding Document as well as order dated 18.07.2017 issued by the State Government and mentioned at Clause 6.1 of the Bid Evaluation Report, the bids were to be evaluated by four persons / officials namely Divisional Accounts Officer, Executive Engineer (PMGSY) Champawat, Superintending Engineer (PMGSY), Pithoragarh and Chief Engineer (PMGSY) Kumaon. Decision dated 11.12.2018 would reveal that same do not contain signatures of Divisional Accounts Officer and respondent no. 5 acted as both Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. Meaning thereby two persons have taken decision instead of four persons. As per Attachment 6B to the decision dated 11.12.2018, under Clause 5 (v) income returns for the last three years were to be submitted and the bid of the petitioner has been declared not qualified on the ground of improper balance sheet, though same was not at all required. Petitioner submitted certified and audited balance sheet along with his bid document. Technical bids of petitioner were rejected on two grounds viz. details of on going work was not submitted and improper balance sheet was submitted. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the respondent no. 6 and perused the record.