TEJAS OMPRAKASH PATEL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Maitri P. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Respondent No.3 has been deleted and notice is served on respondent No.5 and he has remained unrepresented.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 invited bids from the tenderers for consultancy services for detail road safety audit and solution of existing roads and upgradation of different category of SH/MDR of Saurashtra Region in Rajkot Circle-2, Bhavnagar, Botad, Amreli, Junagadh, Porbandar and Gir Somnath districts in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner submitted its bid through online on 14/9/2020 and preliminary bid opening was held on 24/9/2020. In the first evaluation the petitioner was assigned the marks of 0 (zero) out of 20. Subsequently, technical and financial bid was opened on 4/12/2020. Since the technical proposal submitted by the petitioner was rejected, the financial bid of the petitioner was not opened. On request made by the petitioner telephonically and through email on 5/12/2020 to provide details of evaluation and reasons for disqualification, respondent by communication dtd. 5/12/2020 has shared the evaluation-sheet and the assignment of marks as 0 (zero), which is sought to be explained by the petitioner contending it ought to have been assigned full marks namely 20 out of 20. On 7/12/2020, the respondent authority revised the evaluation and again disqualified the petitioner without citing any reason in which the score was given by the officer as 0 (zero) out of 20. Again the petitioner corresponded with the respondent authority between 7/12/2020 to 21/12/2020 and two representatives of the petitioner company are said to have met the representatives of the respondent authority at Bhavnagar on 22/12/2020 and after several correspondence, respondent by communication dtd. 12/1/2021 intimated the petitioner the reason for disqualification of the petitioner from the tender process. This was also replied to by the petitioner on 18/1/2021 and on account of no favourable response having been received from respondent, petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

(3.) We have heard the arguments of Ms. Maitri P. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 who have reiterated the contentions raised in their respective pleadings. We have perused the case papers.