Rajendra Kumar Vasudev vs The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 11460/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking directions against the respondents to accept its technical bid and to award contract for providing catering and other allied services at three staff training centres of the respondent-Bank, if financial bid be found to be the lowest one.

The relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the respondent-Bank issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) on 05.11.2009 for awarding the contract abovementioned. The appellant firm submitted its tenders in relation to all the three centres but was declared ineligible after opening the technical bids; and thereafter, the financial bids were opened wherein another tenderer M/s Narayan Traders was found to have been offered the lowest rates and, accordingly, the tenders submitted by the said firm were accepted.

Questioning the rejection of its offer, the appellant preferred the writ petition aforesaid and it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the only requirement had been of five years'' experience whereas on the part of the appellant, the requisite experience certificates for ten years, i.e., 1988 to 1999, were submitted; that income tax returns were also submitted in relation to the sound financial condition; and that in the knowledge of the respondent-Bank, the firm M/s Anandmal Manoj Kumar, who had currently been providing catering services at all the three centres aforesaid, had been a sister concern of the petitioner firm. It was submitted that the appellant had offered the lowest financial bid and upon acceptance of technical bid, the contract was bound to be awarded in its favour. The appellant contended that the respondent-Bank, a public undertaking, was under an obligation to adopt a fair procedure and transparency in the matter of awarding contract; and that the rejection of the appellants'' technical bid without any rational basis was unfair and arbitrary.

The learned Single Judge found untenable the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant essentially for the reason that the appellant had failed to produce the requisite documents towards availability of infrastructure, manpower etc. apart from the want of document about the appellant being engaged in the business of providing catering and other ancillary service for the present. The learned Single Judge further observed that the experience of the other firm, even if a sister concern, could not have been construed as an experience possessed by the appellant firm. The learned Single Judge found no case of denial of equal treatment or of rejection of technical bid in perfunctory manner; and hence, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge said,-

Admittedly, in the instant case, for technical bids, the tenderers were required to furnish the details in respect of technical and basic requirements for providing catering and ancillary services, specified as infrastructure available, man power i.e. Cook, Supervisor, Helper etc., financial soundness, past experience and credentials, quality of food, health & hygiene, compliance of State and Central Laws i.e. Labour Law, Income Tax etc. The tenderers were also required to submit the certificates and other proof to support the technical and basic requirements enumerated as above. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had produced the documents regarding its experience of providing catering services relating to the year 1988 to 1999. No document was produced by the petitioner regarding the infrastructure available, the man power etc. There was no document produced to show that the petitioner firm is even engaged in the business of providing catering and other ancillary services for the present. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner firm and M/s. Anandmal Manoj Kumar had submitted their separate tenders for all the three centers. Therefore, even if the petitioner firm and M/s. Anandmal Manoj Kumar are sister concern, they have to be treated as two separate firms so far as the consideration of their tenders for the award of the contract in question is concerned. The experience of M/s. Anandmal Manoj Kumar which is presently providing catering services at all the three staff centers of the respondent Bank could not have been construed as experience possessed by the petitioner firm at the time of consideration of the technical bids. Thus, in absence of the requisite documents supporting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have committed no illegality in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. Moreover, having perused the documents produced by the petitioner in support of the technical bid and so also the documents submitted by the successful bidder M/s Narayan Traders, in considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that in the matter of consideration of the technical bid, the petitioner has been denied equal treatment and its technical bid has been rejected by the respondent in perfunctory manner.

Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the advertisement never specified any particular document to be produced to prove the requisite infrastructure and manpower; that admittedly the firm M/s Anandmal Manoj Kumar, who was at the relevant time providing the catering services at the centres in question, is the sister concern of the petitioner firm and had been accepted so by the respondent authorities; and that no different documents were submitted in relation to the said firm M/s Anandmal Manoj Kumar and yet, its technical bid was accepted whereas the appellant''s technical bid was rejected in an arbitrary manner.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a remote reason to consider interference in this matter relating to award of contract for catering services.

It is noticed that the respondent-Bank in its reply before the learned Single Judge produced all the relevant material including the comparative chart prepared after consideration of the technical bids. It is borne out that amongst other aspects, availability of infrastructure and manpower was not shown in the technical bid submitted by the appellant. The NIT (Annex.8) itself gave out that all the terms and conditions could be noticed from the tender document obtainable from the authorities concerned. The appellant was precisely aware of the eligibility requirements and if yet failed to produce the requisite proof for the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, rejection of its technical bid cannot be faulted at.

The submissions regarding experience and fulfilling of other conditions by M/s Anandmal Manoj Kumar, allegedly a sister concern, has hardly any relevance or bearing in this case. In the matter of award of contract, the respondent-Bank could not have been forced to consider the material relevant for the technical bid of one firm for the purpose of the technical bid of the other firm, even if alleged to be the sister concern. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the respondents have taken up the process of evaluation of bids objectively and on relevant considerations uniformly applicable to all the tenderers; and it cannot be said to be a case of the respondent-Bank acting arbitrarily, irrationally or unreasonably.

In an overall comprehension of the matter, we are unable to find any error when the learned Single Judge has dismissed the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner; and we do not find any reason to show interference in this appeal.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.