SUNIL KUMAR BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, wherein the challenge is to the construction of the road from package No. 3727 to 3732. The respondent No.3 was granted contract of some of the packages of the said road. It was on 26.12015, bids were invited to construct roads in respect of the above said packages. The bids were to be submitted by 17.30 hours on 17th December, 2015. Though the petitioner has attached the Notice Inviting Tender as published in the newspaper, but the details of the tender documents have been attached when the additional documents were filed. The stand of the petitioner is that he submitted his bid in Envelope-A before the time prescribed, but the stamp paper was supplied on 18th December, 2015. The Clause-12 of the instructions to the bidder pertains to the submission of online Envelope-A. Clause-19 deals with opening and evaluation of the bid. The relevant clauses read as under:-

(2.) The petitioner has also referred to Annexure-B, a sample of an affidavit which is to be contained in Envelope-A. Such Annexure has a note that the affidavit duly notarized in original should reach at least one calendar day before opening of the bid. In the face of such conditions meant for the bidders, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notarized affidavit could be supplied a day before the opening of the bid, but the same having been submitted on 18.12015, therefore, the lack of an affidavit cannot be a ground to reject the bid of the petitioner. It is also argued that the bids were not opened on the dates mentioned in the tender document which is an illegal act.

(3.) It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opening of the technical bid was indicative of the fact that Envelope-A submitted by the petitioner was containing requisite document as only then the technical bid could be opened.