ANOOP KUMAR TIWARI Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAMLIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who claims to be a B Class enlisted contractor by the first respondent, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (for short 'bsnl') is seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) ON 7-3-2007 the BSNL issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'nit') in respect of four number of works. The petitioner obtained the tender form, filled and submitted it along with the documents in the office of BSNL. The technical bid of the tenders received by the BSNL were opened on 5-4-2007. The Technical Evaluation Committee (for short TEC) of the BSNL after scrutinizing all the tenders disqualified the petitioner's technical bid on the ground that along with the tender form the petitioner did not submit certificate relating to registration of the firm and also on the ground that the solvency certificate submitted by him is older than the date of issuance of NIT. Accordingly, the TEC recommended the opening of the financial bids of remaining two bidders, viz. , fourth respondent and one M/s. Pushpendra Singh vide order dated 12-4-2007 (Annexure P-1 ). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that his disqualification on the ground that he has not submitted the certificate relating to registration of firm and also on the ground that the solvency certificate submitted by him is older than the issuance of the NIT is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that in the absence of any condition in the NIT requiring that the solvency certificate must not be older than the date of issuance of NIT, the TEC of the BSNL could not have disqualified him on this ground. He submits that he having produced the solvency certificate which was valid up to 23-11-2007 the BSNL ought to have accepted the same. He further contends that the fifth respondent did not himself fill up the tender form and he himself did not participate at the time of opening of the technical bid as well as the financial bid and the sixth respondent who attended the opening of the bids on behalf of the fifth respondent was not possessing authorization letter as per the requirement of the NIT. In the circumstances, the acceptance of bid of the fifth respondent is illegal. He also submits that rejection of his tender and acceptance of the tender of the fifth respondent is arbitrary and rejection of the petitioner's bid being based upon unreasonable condition of furnishing solvency certificate to be not older than the date of NIT, the impugned order dated 12-4-2007 deserves to be quashed and the BSNL be directed to issue fresh NIT.