RAJORIYA BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE similar questions of facts and law are involved in these two matters, with the consent of parties the matters are finally heard and decided by this common order. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No.4648/2012.

(2.) THE bids were invited by respondents to select experienced and capable operators for establishment, operation and maintenance of Lok Seva Kendra (LSK) in various districts of the State. LSKs are required to be constituted for the purpose of receiving and processing the application from the residents of the concerned Block/District of the LSK. These LSKs are to be established as per the requirement of Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010. A Request for Proposal (RFP) document was downloaded by the interested bidders from the relevant website and they were required to fill up the bid as per the requirement of RFP. The RFP document is filed as Annexure P-3 in this petition. The petitioners submitted their bid and they are aggrieved when the same is rejected by issuance of Annexures P-1 and P-2. It is stated in the rejection orders that the document was required to be downloaded in requisite format in English and then it was required to be submitted. In Annexure P-2 it is stated that requisite RFP document was not enclosed by the petitioners.

(3.) PER Contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that petition is totally misconceived and there is misrepresentation of fact by the petitioners. She submits that after issuance of RFP, to remove the doubts and issue clarification, a meeting of bidders was organised in which petitioners also participated. A specific question No.40 was asked as to whether the bid can be submitted in Hindi. It was made clear that bid can be filled up in both the languages, i.e. Hindi or English, but the requisite document which is in a prescribed format of English is to be downloaded and only that document is to be used. In other words, learned Government Advocate submits that it was open for the petitioners to fill the requisite format downloaded from the website, which is in English and to fill it in Hindi but it was not open for the petitioners to change the language of the format itself. The document submitted by Rajoriya Brothers is shown to this Court to submit that the petitioners have not filled up the requisite format which was to be downloaded in English, therefore, their claim was rightly rejected.