ARYAN AVIATION PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to Communication No. DCK/Adm/14/704-05 dated 01.07.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar and Communication No. 402/GS. Machail Yatra/14/470 dated 03.07.2014 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide Communication dated 03.07.2014 the Divisional Commissioner authorized the Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar to open the financial bid of M/s. U-Tair India Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 4 herein, and allot the contract after finalization of the rates. When this case was taken up on 31.07.2014, Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel submitted at the Bar that looking to the nature of controversy and commencement of the contract with effect from 01.08.2014 this case may be heard finally, which was not opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents. Therefore, with the consensus of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition was admitted to hearing and taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The facts as borne out from the writ record and as pleaded by the writ petitioner are that the Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar, respondent No. 3 herein, issued Notice Inviting Tenders on 31.05.2014 inviting tenders for providing Helicopter service for Machail Yatra-2014 commencing with effect from 01.08.2014 to 30.08.2014, and the last date for submission of tenders was fixed for 15.06.2014 upto 4 PM. In view of holiday on 15.06.2014, a Corrigendum came to be published on 14.06.2014 extending the date of submission of tender documents to 16.06.2014 upto 4 PM. The petitioner also submitted the tender documents. As per the averments made in the petition, the technical bid was opened on 23.06.2014 in presence of all Members of the Committee and the bidders. It is averred than on opening of the tenders the petitioner-Company came to know that only 4 tender forms including that of the petitioner had been received by respondent No. 3, out of which two tenders came to be rejected on the ground that one bidder, namely, M/s. Trikuta Travel Planners was a simple travel agent and not an operator, whereas another bidder, namely, M/s. Pinnacle Air Pvt. Ltd. was having only one Helicopter, thus both were lacking the basic eligibility as per the tender notice.

(3.) The concern of petitioner-Company is that as per practice it was not formally communicated regarding rejection of its tender, though as per the information received, the tender of petitioner-Company was rejected because of non-furnishing of affidavit as required in terms of Clause 7(h) of the tender notice. It is contended that the petitioner had objected to the opening of technical bid on the ground that there was no technical expert from the Office of Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Government of India. New Delhi, who alone was the competent authority to open and accept/reject the technical bid. It is further contended that the technical bid of petitioner-Company seems to have been rejected with mala fide intention and revengeful attitude because the petitioner had raised serious objection at the time of opening of the technical bid. It is further contended that awarding of contract in Favour of respondent No. 4 is illegal and bad in law as it is lacking the eligibility criteria in terms of the tender notice.