JARPAL - JPW-DMC Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.N. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is against the rejection of his technical bid on the ground that the Local Content (Make in India) Certificate dtd. 17/8/2024, submitted by the petitioner as a clarification sought by the State respondents vide Request No.1 on 16/8/2024, was disqualified on the ground that the clarification dtd. 17/8/2024 was not in consonance with Clause 19.2 (II)(B) of the Additional Terms and Conditions (Instruction to Bidder).As per Clause 19.2(II) (B) of the Additional Terms and Conditions in the Bid Document (hereinafter referred to as the 'ATC'), whenever a clarification is required to be made in relation to some deficiency in the uploaded documents of a bidder, the shortfall information/documents sought for must pre-exist the date of opening the tender and should not have undergone any change since then.

(3.) In the present case, the last date of submission of tender/bids was 5/8/2024. The Local Content (Make in India) Certificate, submitted by the petitioner as a clarification to Request No.1 was dtd. 17/8/2024. Clause 19.2(II)(B) of the ATC states as follows :-