PAPPU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ application is to quash the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee contained in Memo No. 4614 dated 10.12.2015 by which the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit the earnest money in accordance with Clause 16.1 of the Standard Bidding Document (S.B.D.). It appears that the petitioner had submitted the earnest money enclosing post office term deposit of 5 years whereas according to the S.B.D., the term deposit had to be for a period of 1 year/2 year/3 year.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his technical bid was rejected only on the ground that he had not furnished the earnest money in terms of Clause 16.1 a. of the S.B.D. which was a technicality and could not have resulted in rejection of his technical bid itself. It is submitted that though as per the provision, post office term deposit of 1 year/2 year/3 year was required but the petitioner in bonafide impression has submitted the post office term deposit of 5 years and the fact that the Executive Engineer had forwarded it to the concerned Post Master for pledging it in his name clearly indicates that the authorities themselves did not hold this to be of the nature of rejecting the technical bid entirely. Learned counsel submits that the object of depositing earnest money/Bid security is to ensure that the Government is secured in the event the contractor is unable to fulfill the obligations under the agreement and thus there being no controversy that the petitioner had pledged the amount though not strictly in terms of the S.B.D. but the actual amount being pledged in the name of the authority of the State Government, the condition ought not to have been given a very narrow and strict interpretation so as to reject his bid. He further submits that if at all there was strict compliance of such term required from the petitioner then the concerned Executive Engineer while referring the document to the concerned post office for pledging ought to have pointed it to the petitioner such shortcoming and the petitioner would have readily complied with the terms of the aforesaid clause of the S.B.D. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities are only to come to a conclusion as far as the technical bid is concerned with regard to the general condition which the tenderer fulfills or not while moving to the next stage of considering the financial bid and the general public interest should be kept in mind and further the authorities are also obliged to ensure that there is wider participation as in the present case only one tenderer was left after the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner and the third one having withdrawn his tender. Learned counsel for the said proposition has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., 2007 AIR(SC) 437, the relevant being at paragraphs 61 and 66 as well as the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. State of Bihar, 2015 1 PLJR 772, the relevant being at paragraphs 24 and 25.