SHYAMSINGH DEVISINGH THAKUR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since challenge has been raised to the acceptance of the tender bid of the respondent no.2 and as the tender work pertains to construction of a minor bridge, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that on 24.10.2018 Municipal Council, Mohpa - Respondent No.1 published a tender notice inviting offers for the work of construction of minor bridge across Madhuganga River. The petitioner no.1 along with the respondent nos. 2 to 4 responded to the tender notice. On 04.12.2018 after the technical bids were opened and the envelopes of all bidders were found to be valid, the financial bids were opened. The bid of the respondent no.2 was found to be the lowest. The Municipal Council accordingly proposed to issue a work order to the respondent no.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the opening of the financial bid of the respondent no.2 on the ground that the respondent no.2 was not technically qualified has challenged the said process. The petitioners seek disqualification of the respondent no.2 from participating in the financial bid process and pray that being the lowest bidder, the work order be issued to the petitioner no.1.

(3.) Shri M.P.Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the technical bid of the respondent no.2 as contained in envelope no.1 did not satisfy the essential conditions prescribed in the tender notice. Referring to Clauses 1.4.7, 1.4.9 and 1.4.10 it was his submission that the essential conditions prescribed by these Clauses had not been satisfied by the respondent no.2. On that count, the financial bid of the respondent no.2 was not liable to be opened. As per Clause 1.4.7 it was necessary for a bidder to furnish scanned copy of details of work of similar type and magnitude with supporting certificates. It was submitted that as per said Clause a bidder was required to give details of work undertaken similar to the one for which the tender was issued. As the tender was issued for construction of a minor bridge, it was incumbent upon a bidder to have carried out work of similar type and magnitude. However, from the details of work undertaken by the respondent no.2, it could be seen that he had not carried out any work of similar nature. The documents submitted by the respondent no.2 indicated construction of compound walls, road widening, construction of dwelling houses and halls to have been undertaken. Work similar to construction of a minor bridge had not been carried out by the respondent no.2 and hence the bid of the respondent no.2 was liable to be treated as non-responsive. As per Clause 1.4.9 a bidder was required to give an affidavit as regards correctness and truthfulness of the documents furnished. The affidavit was to be given in the prescribed proforma making reference to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mohpa. However, the respondent no.2 furnished the affidavit referring to the Chief Officer/Administrator, Municipal Council, Wanadongari. The affidavit therefore was not in the required format and not satisfying the tender condition. Referring to Clause 1.4.10 it was submitted that the scanned copy of the professional tax registration and clearance certificate was necessary. The respondent no.2 however furnished the photocopy of those documents and not scanned copy. The petitioner raised aforesaid objections on 03.11.2018, 05.11.2018 and 29.11.2018 but no cognizance of the same was taken. It was further submitted that after the technical bids were opened, the financial bids were to be opened two days therefrom. However the technical bids as well as the financial bids were opened simultaneously in breach of the prescribed condition. He further submitted that though the technical evaluation summary details indicated presence of the Chief Officer, the said Officer was not present when the bids were opened. The process of technical evaluation was therefore undertaken in the absence of the Chief Officer. He referred to reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in that regard. It was thus submitted that after declaring the bid of the respondent no. 2 as non-responsive, the bid of the petitioner no.1 being lowest was liable to be accepted. He referred to the averments in paragraph 7 of the writ petition to indicate that the petitioners were willing to negotiate its financial bid to match the figures quoted by the respondent no.2 in its financial bid. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in M/s.Jay Constructions Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2019 (2) ALL MR 50, Supreme-Mahavir (JV) and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, 2013(4) Mh.L.J. 836, Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd and others, (1999) 1 SCC 492, Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others (1979) 3 SCC 489. It was thus submitted that the petitioners were entitled to the relief as prayed for.