MOHAMMAD UMAR BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of following reliefs:

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner, in response to NIT No. SKIMS/WDB/19 of 2016 dtd. 28/9/2016, issued by official respondents, participated through online mode and uploaded all the documents and evensubmitted his financial bid as well. The date of opening of the tender was fixed on 21/11/2016 and the petitioner surfaced as a lowest tenderer with a bid of Rs.8,41,396.10 paisa, whereas, the private respondent offered a bid of Rs.8,45,716.94.But the official respondents rejected the tender of the petitioner on the ground that he did not upload the Registration Certificate and as a matter of fact the Registration Certificate was very much with the petitioner. It is submitted that the tenders were to be uploaded online and during the said period, the internet service in Srinagar remained blocked and as such it was difficult to upload the tender on the website. It is submitted that the petitioner filed his tender through online and the Registration Certificate was submitted before the respondents even prior to the cutoff date and as such the petitioner was all along eligible. It is also stated that the petitioner was also registered with the Commercial Department and was also having a Pan Card. The respondents uploaded the technical bid evaluation on 21/11/2016 and the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the plea that he had not uploaded the renewal of registration, when, as a matter of fact, the registration was renewed within time and same was submitted before the respondents as well. It is further stated that the respondents had intentionally and deliberately rejected the technical bid of the petitioner reflected in the Technical Evaluation Bid List. The petitioner has further stated that his technical bid has been rejected on flimsy grounds and he has been discriminated as the documents sought to be uploaded were not of any consequences as he was possessed of the Registration Certificate andnon-renewal of registration should not have debarred him. The petitioner has furtherstated himself to be the lowest bidder and as such claims to have a preferential claim over the private respondent.

(3.) Response has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be considered while adjudicating the present petition andit is stated that total number of 16 Bidders participated in the tender process out of which 11 bidders were found eligible on opening of the financial bid and 05 bidders were declaredtechnically non responsive. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he had not uploaded valid Registration Certificate up to 13/10/2016 and had also not uploaded the latest Tax Clearance Certificate up to the stipulated date. It is further stated that the Tax Clearance Certificate deposited by the bidder, has been issued by the concerned Department on 31/10/2016, i.e., 18 days after the specified last date of uploading. It is also stated that the technical bid was opened on 24/10/2016 and as the two mandatory documents were not uploaded therefore his technical bid was rejected by the tender opening committee. It is also stated that difference between the bid submitted by the petitioner and first lowest bidder is Rs.4,320.84 and first lowest bidder has consented to down his offer by Rs.4,320.84.