KASHISH DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the decision of the technical tender committee of the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Patna dated 14.09.2018 whereby and whereunder the petitioner company has been declared to be non responsive / disqualified as also for quashing the decision of the said committee dated 05.10.2018, affirming the rejection of the tender of the petitioner on technical grounds. It is further prayed that the respondent-corporation be directed to reconsider the technical qualification of the petitioner in light of his representation dated 15.10.2018.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a notice inviting retender dated 09.04.2018 was issued by the respondent corporation for construction of Government Dental College and Hospital, campus comprising of College building, 100 bedded Hospital, Auditorium, Guest House etc. at Paithna, Nalanda, Bihar. According to the said N.I.T. dated 09.04.2018, the last date of time of receipt (upload) of tender was 23.05.2018 and the tender was to be opened on 25.05.2018.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per the circular of the Government of Bihar dated 17.11.2006, in cases of tender above a sum of Rs. 50 lacs, it would be appropriate for the purposes of adhering to the principles of nature justice that the technical bid is evaluated on the declared date so that the contractors can be present at the appointed date and time. It is also submitted that the said circular further provides that only after hearing the contractor, it can be declared unsuccessful, however, the respondentcorporation, in the present case, did not announce the date of opening / consideration of the technical tender of the petitioner hence, the entire decision making process is vitiated and fit to be set aside. It is further submitted that the impugned decision of the technical committee dated 14.09.2018, as far as the petitioner is concerned, is also vitiated inasmuch as the bid of the petitioner has been held to be technically non responsive on erroneous grounds i.e. on the ground that though Clause 4.5(A)