Laxmi Datt Binwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

By notice Reference No. 633/11-02(xiv)ITCO/URRDA /17 dated 08.06.2018 issued by the Chief Engineer, Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency, it had invited tenders for undertaking the bidding process for the various works as covered in the tender notice. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the same is related to the lying down of the road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana. The road in question, which was thus to be laid out and at the time of the consideration of the bid process was for the work Taka Khandak to Balatari road Stage-1 work, the total cost of the work as per the tender notice was Rs.753.65 lakhs with a maintenance cost of Rs.45.80 lakhs and with a total cost of Rs.799.45 lakhs.

In the bid process a twin bid system was to be adopted. As per clause 1.3.3, which is quoted hereunder, it stipulated that the prospective bidder had to provide and enclose the certificates from the Engineer Incharge pertaining to the existing commitments and the ongoing construction works in which the bidder is already engaged. The provisions of clause 1.3.3 reads as under:

"1.3.3 Information on Bid Capacity (works fro which bids have been submitted and works which are yet to be completed) as on the date of this bid.

Existing commitments and on-going construction works:

Description of work

Place & State

Contract No. & Date

Name & Address of Employer

Value of Contract (Rs. In lakhs)

Stipulated period of completion

Value of works remaining to be completed (Rs. Lakhs)

Anticipated Date of completion

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

"

The reference to clause 1.3.3 at this stage would be essential and relevant for the purposes of the format, which dealt with the necessary information, which was mandatorily required to be supplied by the bidder for the purposes of deciding the case. In the format as many as eight columns have been provided dealing with different information, which was to be supplied by the contractor while submitting his tender.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in compliance thereto the petitioner had submitted all the details as required to be provided in the format as provided therein. But this fact is being controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, as a matter of fact, the information which has been supplied by the petitioner in compliance with clause 1.3.3 were the incomplete information, as some of the information, which was mandatorily required pertaining to the anticipated completion of the work in which the contractor was already engaged, that was not provided by the petitioner in relation to one of the information was not supplied by him to the respondent in relation to works in which he was already engaged.

Ultimately, the Technical Evaluation Committee considered the bid submitted by the petitioner and for the reasons assigned in the decision of the committee taken on 06.09.2018, he was found to be technically non-suited for the following reasons:

L.D. Binwal

वर्ष 2015-16 की आयकर रिटर्न लक्ष्मी दत्त बिनवाल के नाम न होकर किसी अन्य की लगी है। तथा बैलेन्स शीट लक्ष्मी दत्त बिनवाल के नाम नहीं है

प्रगतिरत कार्यों का अपठनीय होने के उपरान्त भी उसकी पुष्टि की जा सकती है।

मान्य है।

प्रगतिरत कार्यों के विवरण SBD के Clause संख्या 1.3.3 के अनुरूप निर्धारित फार्मेट पर नहीं दिया गया है।

The reason for rejection was that the income tax return, which was submitted by the petitioner, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16, which has been submitted by the petitioner along with the balance sheet did not relate to the petitioner, rather it was in relation to some other firm or agency, hence, it was an incomplete information supplied by him, and his bid was held to be technically non-suited for the work.

The second reason which was assigned therein was with regards to the progress of work, which was not detailed in the information supplied by the petitioner and, thus, his bid was rejected being non-responsive by the impugned decision dated 06.09.2018.

The petitioner has supported his contention from the view point that the rejection would be arbitrary for the reason that the submission of the income tax particulars in relation to the other firm, he claims in his response submitted to the Chief Engineer on 30.08.2012, that it was the income tax balance sheet clause, which has been submitted by him was in relation to another firm, which belongs to the petitioner himself. In fact, this reply extended by the petitioner would mean to be an admission of not furnishing the correct particulars pertaining to the income tax returns of his, and which constituted to be the basis for rejection of his technical bid by the impugned order dated 06.09.2018.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in relation to the identical tendering process, which was being resorted to under the Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana, there was another work, which was under consideration, in that bidding to the petitioner had not supplied the correct particulars pertaining to his income tax returns for the last three years, which was mandatory and which has resulted into the decision of rejection of his bid by the order dated 28.08.2018.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2018 'Laxmi Datt Binwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.11.2018 had rejected the writ petition holding thereof that providing of the particulars of the income tax return was the condition precedent and mandatory as per clauses of tender notice and the act of furnishing of incomplete or wrong particulars was sufficient ground, for rejection of the technical bid, which was taken into consideration by the Tender Evaluation Committee and had affirmed the decision dated 28.08.2018 of the committee rejecting the bid, thus the writ petition was dismissed.

This judgment of the learned Single Judge was put to challenge by the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 999 of 2018 'Laxmi Datt Binwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others' and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench was affirmed by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.01.2019, whereby, yet again the Division Bench judgment has propounded that non-furnishing of the correct and complete income tax return particulars with regards to the last three years as contemplated in clause 4.4 B was mandatory for the bidders. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as rendered on 4.01.2019 in Special Appeal No. 999 of 2018, was yet again put to challenge by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court by preferring an SLP being SLP No. 4318-4319/2019 and the same has also been dismissed by the judgment dated 15.02.2019 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, affirming the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, and ultimately judgment of the Coordinate Bench.

On considering the ratio as propounded by the Division Bench of this Court, which stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also considering the non furnishing of the information contemplated in clause 1.3.3 pertaining to the particulars regarding the ongoing existing work, the petitioner had rather supplied incomplete information was supplied by the petitioner in relation to some of the works, and particularly rejection order also refers to the fact that the particulars of the income tax return for the Financial Year 2015-16 was not appropriately described as it was also in relation to other firm.

13 Thus, this Court is of the view that the Technical Evaluation Committee had not committed any error, which calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, upholds the rejection order dated 06.09.2019 in the light of the ratio as propounded by the Division Bench of this Court, which stood affirmed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.02.2019.

Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.