P.GOPINATHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State, Shri Apurava Jani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.5 and Shri Dhawal Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred present petition on 30.07.2017 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the action of the respondent Corporation in considering the bid submitted by the respondent no.5 herein as qualified for the Tender Notice No. PHD/DCHH/19/201617 issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation for door to door refuse garbage collection and transportation for a period of five years and also consequential decision taken thereof. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure G for Central Zone as qualified competitive bid and to award the contract to the petitioner.

(3.) That online E Tenders were invited by the respondent Surat Municipal Corporation for the door to door refuse garbage collection and transportation. That date of download of online tender was between 23.11.2016 to 12.12.2016. The last date of online submission was fixed for 12.12.2016, however the same was extended from time to time and lastly it was extended to 16.3.2017.The last date of submission of demand draft of tender fees EMD for physical form was between 14.12.2016 to 19.12.2016. However, the same was extended from time to time and lastly it was extended to 29.1.2017. That prebid meeting was fixed Dec. 1, 2016. All those bidders who remained present in the prebid meeting were apprised about the process and procedure. It appears that respondent no.4 herein M/s. Facile Maven Pvt Ltd was appointed to evaluate the bid / tender documents. That as per the schedule, the opening date of technical bid was fixed on February 1, 2017, whereas the opening date of price bid was fixed on 10.02.2017. It appears that the respondent Corporation divided the bid opening process in three parts i.e. (1) opening of prequalification bid (wherein Earnest Money Deposit, Tender Fees will be verified);(2) Technical bid will be opened (after the verification and scrutinizing the aspect of Earnest Money Deposit and Tender Fees). At the second stage technical and financial capabilities will be evaluated and after qualifying criteria is completed the bidder will be marked as "qualified" or "disqualified" bidder and (3) Those bidders who are technically qualified at qualifying evaluation process at stage one and stage two, financial (price) bid will be opened by the Corporation. It appears that the petitioner along with other 20 bidders submitted their bids which included the wife of the petitioner P. Kavitha. That all the bidders were required to comply with the necessary terms and conditions of the NIT. The respective bidders were required to upload the tender document like financial turnover, solvency certificate, experience certificate, technical bid document and reference document Demand Draft details for tender fees and EMD details and other documents in electronic forms only through online (by scanning). That as per the post qualification criteria and evaluation procedure and to consider the financial capacity, average turnover of last three years (2015-16, 2014-15 and 2013-14) were required to be considered for evaluation. All the bidders were required to submit audit annual report / financial report of last 7 years. As in the present case, question with respect to Central Zone financial qualifying criteria for average annual turnover and solvency of Central Zone was Rs.2,66,37,000.00. As per the tender notice as the NIT was issued for all the zones (7 in number) the contractors /bidders were required to submit their preference for opening of the price bid as per Annexure XIV. As per important instruction to the contractors /tenderer, the tenderer were required to submit the complete set of tender document as downloaded dully filled in and signed by the tenderer, as prescribed in the different clause of the tender document. That all the pages were required to be initialed. That clause 25 of the important instruction provided for disqualification, which reads as under: