ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is pleaded by the petitioner that it fulfilled all the eligibility conditions and, therefore, claims to be the responsive bidder. Notwithstanding the same, the Bid Evaluation Committee has treated it ineligible and rejected its technical bid. As a result, financial bid, which was to be opened has not been opened. The petitioner further states that since the bids were submitted online, as per the online status of the various bidders, who had submitted the bids, the bid of the petitioner was treated as non-responsive and, therefore, the price quoted by the petitioner has not been mentioned.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion on 23.01.2013, we had directed Mr. Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab to accept the notice and produce the record containing the reasons for disqualifying the petitioner. Mr. Puri had produced the record on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.01.2013. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought short adjournment to make his submissions.

(3.) As clear from the above, another consideration which weighed with the respondents was the communication received from the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh stating therein that the petitioner had completed 74.21% of project works upto July, 2010. Thereafter, it had failed to take up the balance work inspite of repeated correspondence. The work was ultimately withdrawn from the petitioner by the Andhra Pradesh Government.