KATRA MATA VAISHNO DEVI HOTELS, KATRA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of Bid Notice issued for allotment of license for catering services at major static unit refreshment room at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Railway Station and to carry out process of selection of licensee strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to disclose the result of techno-commercial bids of all participating bidders as well as writ of prohibition, commanding respondents not to award the license in question in favour of respondent No. 5 or any person. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.

(2.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act 1956. The petitioner company has vast experience in the field of running hotel and restaurant. The petitioner is operating food station on the first floor of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Railway Station. The respondent No. 3 floated the notice on 26th June, 2014 for allotment of contract for catering services at Major Static Unit Refreshment Room at Shri Mata Vaishno Katra, Railway Station for a period of five years from the date of commencement of liecnse. As per the NIT, the last date of submission of bids was 20th Aug., 2014 and the bids which were to be submitted in two parts, namely, Techno-commercial bid and Financial bid. In response to the aforesaid NIT, 19 bidders including petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted their bids. The Techno-commercial bid was to be opened on 20th Aug., 2014 itself at 3:30 P.M. The financial bids of only those bidders were required to be opened whose Techno-commercial bids were found to be responsive. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 acted in breach of Clauses-2.2.1, 2.7.1, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4. The Techno-commercial bids of the bidders were opened on 20th Aug., 2014, however, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not apprised about the status of his bid and later on learnt that out of 19 bids, 17 bids were rejected and out of two bidders, bid of respondent No. 5 was finalized. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs stated supra.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Techno-commercial bid as well as the Price Bid was signed by Managing Director of the petitioner company, namely, Mr. Rakesh Wazir on the basis of Resolution dated 19th Aug., 2014 passed in his favour by Board of Directors. In addition, a Power of Attorney was executed by aforesaid Rakesh Wazir in favour of one-Rajinder Singh, Manager Accounts of the Company to remain present at the time of opening of the Techno-commercial bid. It is further submitted that since the Principal himself had signed the bid documents, therefore, the Techno-commercial bid of the petitioner could not have been rejected with reference to alleged defects in the Power of Attorney. It is further submitted that action of the Bid Evaluation Committee in holding that the Techno-commercial bid of the petitioner is not responsive is illegal and is arbitrary. It is also argued that the validity of the bid which was for a period of 180 days as per terms and conditions of the NIT has already expired, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition as an interim order was granted by a Bench of this Court on 11th Feb., 2015 directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to grant of license in question.