Shri Smrat Inder Singh vs Union of India

Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.(Oral) - The petitioner, said to be engaged in the contract work with the respondent No. 3 for supply of eatables/commodities, has filed this writ petition seeking to question the proceedings in relation to schedule item No. 74 in the notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 09.12.2015 wherein, the bid given by the respondent No. 4 has been accepted by the official respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that the bid submitted by the respondent No. 4 was not in conformity with the terms of NIT, inasmuch he failed to meet with the requirements of Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (4), where under, past experience certificate from the authorised office ''for providing supplies of items fit for human consumption with specific grading for performance for a period not later than 3 years to the tune of 75% or more than the value of Schedule contract'' was required to be given.

The petitioner has referred to the alleged certificate said to have been submitted by the respondent No. 4 with his tender (Annexure III - page 48) and it is contended that therein, only a list of alleged works performed has been given by the Officer concerned in relation to respondent No. 4 for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015 - 16; but neither grading for performance is stated nor it is specified that the supply had been of the items fit for human consumption. The petitioner has attempted to contradistinguish the certificate submitted by the respondent No. 4 with the certificates submitted by him (Annexure II - pp 34 - 36), and it is submitted that such certificate ought to have been carrying all the necessary particulars as required by Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (4) of the NIT. It is, therefore, submitted that the technical bid of the respondent No. 4 was required to be rejected but has wrongly been accepted by the official respondents in an entirely unreasonable and irrational manner.

For certain relevant factual aspects having not been clarified by the petitioner, queries were put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents about the dates of opening of the bids and extending of the information to the petitioner. To this, the learned counsel for the official respondents has submitted that in the process of inviting tender and giving contracts, e-procurement process has been employed, wherein and where under, the bidder concerned, after generation of his unique identification number that was provided with a digital key, had the access to all the relevant documents concerning the particular tender process so as to keep himself aware of the entire material being considered by the authorities.

It is submitted that the petitioner was also having such facility and was in know of the fact that the technical bid was opened on 29.1.2016; and in fact, the information about opening of Technical Bids was furnished to the petitioner on e-mail as also via SMS; wherein, the date for opening of the Cost Bids was also indicated, i.e., 18.02.2016. It is further submitted that the Cost Bid was indeed opened on the stipulated date and the result of opening of such bid was again sent to the petitioner by e-mail as well as via SMS. The learned counsel for the respondent has also indicated that the work order to the successful bidder, i.e., the respondent No. 4 has been issued on 19.04.2016.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is not inclined to consider interference.

The clause sought to be referred by the petitioner reads as under:

"(f) Past experience certificate issued by authorised agencies/offices of any Govt/Army/Para Military Force for providing supplies of items fit for human consumption with specific grading for performance for a period not later than three years duly signed by Authorised agencies/Govt/Army/Para Military Force/Contract Operating Officer to the tune of 75% or more than the value of the Schedule contract (i.e. year 2013-14 onwards)"

The certificate submitted by the respondent No. 4 as issued from the Office of 444 Coy ASC (Sup) Type - A, shows the works said to have been performed by him in the following terms:

"List Of Works Performed From 2013-14 Onwards

Ranadhir Debnath

For Financial Year 2013-14

KUMBIRGRAM VEG & FRUITS AT AIR FORCE STATION ARMY

= Rs.13,79,705.00

CUW SCHOOL MINI BUS AD-HOC HIRING ARMY

= Rs. 6,43,900.00

KHASIABARI EGGS FRESH SUPPLY DEPOT ARMY

= Rs. 3,95,991.00

Rs. 24,19,596.00

Financial Year 2014-15

43 AR HAFLONG ANG JATINGA GROUP B RATION SCH.71

= Rs. 51,81,025.00

LAILAPUR VEG & FRUITS ARMY

= Rs. 8,35,324.00

VAIRANGTE VEG & FRUITS

= Rs. 13,82,222.00

TAWIPUI VEG & FRUITS, MIZORAM, ARMY

= Rs. 6,83,621.00

TAWIPUI POG MIZORAM, ARMY

= Rs. 2,36,670.00

PROVN. OF TYPE V QUARTER AT 2MGAR SILCHAR

= Rs. 49,07,752.00

TOTAL

= Rs.1,32,26,614.00

Financial Year 2015-16

2 MGAR GROUP B RATION, SCH.88

= Rs. 48,10,000.00

28 AR LUNGEI GROUP B RATION, SCH.86

= Rs. 73,50,000.00

27 AR PAILAPOOL & HARINAGAR GROUP B & C RATION, SCH.69

= Rs. 24,00,000.00

LAILAPUR EGGS FRESH, ARMY

= Rs. 20,75,000.00

VAIRANGTE EGGS FRESH, ARMY

= Rs. 16,34,000.00

TOTAL = Rs.1,82,69,000.00

GRAND TOTAL = Rs. 3,39,15,210.00"

True it is that in the said certificate, as submitted by the respondent No. 4, the specific words "fit for human consumption" and the grading for performance have not been stated, but it is difficult to say that only for these shortcomings, the Technical Bid submitted by the respondent No. 4 was required to be rejected altogether. The certificate had indeed been issued from the Commanding Officer of the particular Company; and the items said to have been supplied indicate the things of human consumption. Moreover, when the respondent No. 4 had been working consecutively for 3 years from the year 2013-14, it is difficult to say that there was any dissatisfaction over his performance nor there is any material to draw any inference against the respondent No. 4. In any case, as to whether such certificate met with the requirements of Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (4) or not and as to whether any clarification was requisite from the respondent No. 4 or not, were the matters for consideration of the authorities concerned; and they cannot be said to have acted unfair or irrational, if the bid of the respondent No. 4, was not rejected for some alleged shortcomings in the certificate submitted by him.

In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the contentions sought to be urged by the petitioner, which are more of the matter of form rather than that of substance, cannot be accepted.

Apart from the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioner for the other relevant reason that the petitioner cannot be said to have approached the Court with requisite promptitude in this matter. As noticed, the Technical Bids were opened on 29.01.2016 and the Cost Bids were opened on 18.02.2016. In fact, the petitioner himself had made a representation on 11.03.2016. The petitioner, however, filed this writ petition only on 03.05.2016. The work in question is for the financial year 2016 - 17 and looking to the nature of the work and nature of the contract, even one month''s delay in approaching this Court appears to be substantial in nature.

Moreover, it is also noticed that the petitioner has not made forthright disclosure of the relevant material facts, including the fact that he had access to the documents of the respondent No. 4 immediately after opening of the tenders on 29.01.2016.

For what has been discussed herein above, it turns out that the petitioner has neither disclosed relevant material facts nor has approached the Court with promptitude. Above all, the grievance sought to be suggested by the petitioner, of alleged want of proper experience certificate of the respondent No. 4, does not appear to be a legal grievance nor the respondents could be said to have acted in any arbitrary or unfair manner.

Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ jurisdiction.

In view of the above, exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined and the writ petition stands dismissed.