Pawan Kumar vs J&K Tourism Development Corporation Ltd And Others

Rajesh Bindal, J

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the Communication No. JKTDC/M&W/EE/800-802 dated 29.05.2020 read with e-NIT No. 06 of JKTDC-2020-21 dated 06.06.2020. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to allot the work to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents vide e-NIT No. 14 of JKTDC/EE/M&W/608-12 dated 24.01.2020 had invited offers for renovation and up-gradation of existing infrastructure at Chichi Mata Ji, Samba. The last date for submission of bids was 07.02.2020 and the same were to be opened on 08.02.2020. The petitioner had submitted his bid. He qualified the technical round and even the financial bids were also opened. The bid of the petitioner was found to be in order and vide communication dated 07.02.2020, the petitioner was asked to be in touch with the tender inviting authority. The same was followed by a communication dated 11.02.2020. The petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. The petitioner had completed all the formalities but despite this fact, he was surprised to receive a communication dated 29.05.2020, vide which, the tender was cancelled exercising the authority in terms of condition No. 04 of the tender document.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid condition was not applicable at all in the case of the petitioner as he was not at fault. The petitioner, in fact, is highly prejudiced with the action of the respondents whereby after opening of financial bids and opening of cards of the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled the tender and issued a fresh tender Notice on 06.06.2020. The competitors now know the rates quoted by the petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition.

The petitioner claimed that he was the lowest bidder having offered ₹ 42,10,500.03. A perusal of clause 4 in the tender document shows that the bids for the work shall remain valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of the bids. Admittedly, the bids were opened and the petitioner was conveyed the same vide letter dated 11.02.2020. Thereafter, there is no material placed on record by the petitioner to show that he had taken any steps to complete the formalities as required in terms of the conditions laid down in the tender document to compete the process. Hence, there is no error in the action taken by the respondents in cancelling his earlier tender and issuing a fresh tender notice.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Before parting with the order, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the earlier tender notice issued for the same work, the approximate cost was shown as Rs 60.15 lacs. The petitioner has offered Rs 42,10,500.03, whereas the other two bidders had offered Rs 48,12,001.50 and Rs 48,97,559.45. Even in the fresh tender notice issued, the approximate cost has been shown as Rs 59.96 lacs. As if the department did not become aware of the fact that the estimate cost offered by all the bidders was in the range of Rs 42,10,500.03 to Rs 48,97,559.45. While finalizing the contract in pursuance to fresh e-NIT No. 06 of JKTDC-2020-21 dated 06.06.2020, the aforesaid factum shall be kept in mind by the competent authority least any of the officers may be found guilty of siphoning of state money or dereliction of duty.

A copy of this order be sent to the Managing Director, J&K Tourism Development Dorporation Ltd., Regional Office, Tourist Reception Centre, Vir Marg, Jammu.