RAJESH JAISWAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH consent heard finally. In pursuance to the N.I.T. dated 21.05.2012 issued by the respondent for establishment, operation and maintenance of Public Service Centre at various places in Dhar District the petitioner submitted her tender for the said work. His technical bid was not accepted on the ground that the request for proposal (RFP) document was not signed on each page. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) DURING the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the RFP document was not signed on each page. He however contended that it was not necessary to have signed the RFP document on each page. He has argued that the nonsigning of the RFP document would not vitiate the petitioner's tender as it was the document downloaded from the respondents' web site itself. He further argued that it was not an essential condition on the basis of noncompliance of which the tender was liable to be rejected. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. M/s Ganesh Engineering Works and others (AIR 1991 SC 1579).

(3.) WE find that in the tender document a condition of signing by tenderer on each page of the RFP document exists. The petitioner having accepted the conditions of the tender and having submitted the tender document cannot subsequently come forward to say that signing of each page of RFP document was not an essential condition. The RFP document was a document through which the bidder was supposed to provide all the information sought from him and if for such an important document the respondents have put a condition that it is to be self attested on each page and the annexures duly certified, the noncompliance of which can certainly entail the rejection of the tender and the tenderer cannot be allowed to say it was not an essential condition. Thus in view of the admitted position that the RFP document was not signed on each page, we decline to interfere in the matter for noncompliance of Clause 2.3.2. (e).