M/S DD Builders Limited vs SK Tikam

Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur rejecting Contempt Case No.1141 of 2018.

The contempt case alleges that the directions issued by the High Court while disposing of W.P. (C ) No.1041 of 2018 vide order dated 9.7.2018, were violated by the alleged contemnors.

For the sake of facility, the aforesaid order dated 9.7.2018 is quoted hereunder:-

"1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances in relation to the Notice inviting Tender especially Clause 2.5 and 2.6 and the requirements laid down therein with regard to a partnership firm and a limited company, the Court directs that the authorities will accept the technical bid tendered by the company in the tender in question. For which even the learned Additional Advocate General has no objection.

The authorities would accept the technical bid i.e. envelope 'B' but they have a duty to verify all the other details with regard to incorporation etc. If the company in question succeeds in the financial bid.

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above."

As is discernible from the order, the Court had directed the authorities to accept the technical bid tendered by the Company subject to verification of all other details with regard to incorporation etc.

At this stage we may quote paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of Part II titled as "Information & Instructions to the Tenderers of Pre-qualification Document". Said paragraphs were as under:

"2.5 If the tender is made by a firm in partnership, it shall be digitally-signed by assigning the tenderer in which case a certified scanned copy of the power of attorney shall accompany the tender. A certified scanned copy of the Partnership Deed; Current Address of the Firm and the full names and the current address of all the partners of the firm and address and land line phone nos. of certificates issuing authority shall also accompany the tender.

2.6 If the tender is made by a limited company or a limited Corporation, it shall be digitally-signed by a duly authorized person holding the power of attorney for signing the tender in which case a certified copy of the power of attorney shall accompany with the tender. Such limited company or Corporation may be required to furnish satisfactory evidence of its existence before the contract is awarded."

According to para 2.5, if the tender was made by a Firm in partnership written documents including scanned copy of partnership deed and other details were required to be furnished alongwith the tender. While in terms of para 2.6, if the tender was made by a Limited Company or a Limited Corporation, the satisfactory evidence of its existence had furnished before the contract was awarded. Thus the requirement as to furnishing of certain documents was distinct and different in case a tender was furnished by a limited company as against, the case where the tender was furnished by a partnership firm.

The rejection in the instant case as has now been projected in the counter affidavit was in terms of the proceedings of Meeting dated 12.7.2018. According to the minutes, the contempt-petitioner was not found to be eligible because of failure in producing relevant documents.

The facts on record are clear that after the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court on 09.07.2018, the work-order in favour of a successful party came to be issued on 26.07.2018 that is to say, without opening the technical bid of the present appellant. It is not the case of the alleged-contemnors that the matter stood covered by the latter part of the order where the details as to incorporation and other things were required to be satisfied but the rejection was for non-production of relevant documents. It is accepted that no intimation was sent to the Contempt Petitioner either intimating about the infirmity or calling upon it to clear the defects.

To that extent, there was definitely an infraction on part of the authorities.

However, considering the fact that the work order has already been issued in favour of successful party, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise powers in the present matter.

We, therefore, see no reason to take different view in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.