SANTOSH KUMAR PAIKRAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Class-A registered Public Works Department Contractor, having Registration No.9539 since the year 2012-13, has filed this application seeking to quash the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary under Annexure-4 and the AFR consequential Financial Bid Opening Summary under Annexure-5 in respect of tender ID No. 2015 - PHEO_22637_1 issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Bhubaneswar and further seeks for direction for fresh evaluation of the Bid taking into account the materials submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Bhubaneswar of the Government of Odisha floated Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the work "Interconnection of OGRs in IIT Campus, Bhubaneswar at Arugul" by National Competitive Bidding through e-Procurement vide Identification No. SEPHBBSR-22/2014-15 dated 25.03.2015 in Annexure-1. The said notice was uploaded in the website of the concerned Department bearing tender ID No.2015_PHEO_22637_1 and the estimated cost of the work was quoted to be Rs. 1,03,82,000/-. Pursuant to such NIT, the petitioner submitted his tender through electronic process by uploading the required documents along with the application, quoting his price at the rate of (-) 12.37% of the estimated value by complying all the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner also submitted the necessary documents along with copies for the renewal of Registration Certificate and the acknowledgment granted by the registering authority of receipt of the original Book of Registration for renewal of the same for further term of three years. There were total six bidders in the tender process including the petitioner. The tender was to be opened in two stages, i.e., technical bid and finance bid. The technical bid was opened on 27.04.2015 at 11.30 a.m. As would be evident from Annexure-4, the technical bid evaluation summary which was uploaded on 15.05.2015, the petitioner's bid was rejected giving reasons "OK" and the date of opening of financial bid was fixed to 16.05.2015 at 1.00 p.m., in which the bid of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in response to the tender call notice dated 25.03.2015 issued by opp. party no.2-Superintending Engineer (PH), P.H. Circle, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, for execution of some construction work, the petitioner had submitted his tender on 23.04.2015 online along with all the requisite documents, except the renewed licence as an 'A' Class Contractor for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018 as the licence had expired on 31.03.2015 and the renewal application had been filed. The technical bids were opened on 27.04.2015 and uploaded on 15.05.2015 in which the bid of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter the financial bids of the other qualified tenderers were opened on 16.05.2015 and, on merits, opp. party no.3 was awarded the contract. The order dated 15.05.2015, by which the tender of the petitioner was rejected on technical ground, was not communicated to the petitioner but only uploaded on the website. It is contended that in the counter affidavit, it may have been stated that the reason for rejection was that the petitioner did not submit his renewed licence as an 'A' Class Contractor, but since no such reason was communicated to the petitioner or uploaded on the website and the subsequent reason given in the counter affidavit would not be sufficient. It is further submitted that even if the renewed licence had not been submitted by the petitioner, since it was informed that the petitioner had applied for renewal of such licence vide application dated 03.02.2015, the petitioner ought to have been granted time to furnish the renewed licence, which time was not given to the petitioner.