SOUMIK DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant 10 the previous direction dated June 14, 2013, the Provident Fund Commissioner has caused a report to be filed indicating that the two lowest bidders for the data entry and verification work of the 70th round of the National Sample Survey have both been found to be ineligible on the ground that appropriate documents in support of their applications were not tendered. The tender documents stipulated certain eligibility criteria at paragraph 2 thereof. These criteria related to experience and infrastructure. Clause 2.5 specified that the employer reserved the right to disqualify such bidders who did not fulfil some or all of the criteria referred to in Clause 2 of the tender documents. Clause 3 of the tender documents required, inter alia, the tenderer's profile to be submitted. Clause 7 required certain documents to be furnished, including copies of the EPF Code and the ESI Code. In other words, bidders had to be registered both with the Provident Fund and with the Employers' State Insurance Authorities. Clause 17.6 of the bid documents provided as follows:

(2.) At the time that the petitioner submitted the bid, the petitioner had not obtained an EPF Code though the petitioner appears to have duly applied therefor. The petitioner says that it was due to the delay on the part of the respondent authorities that an EPF Code was not allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner was not really at fault.

(3.) At the time that the petitioner came to court, it was the petitioner's case that the petitioner had been orally informed by the employer that the petitioner's technical bid was found to be disqualified since the EPF Code had not been mentioned. At the initial stage, the respondent authorities were required to open the financial bids to ascertain whether the petitioner's financial bid came within the zone of consideration for the ground urged by the petitioner to be taken up for consideration only thereupon.