Winner And Fuerzaa (JV) vs Chief Engineer, Bro

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J

Heard Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sangita Pradhan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent who appears on advance notice. It is the petitioner’s case that clause 2.2.2.8 (i) of the Request For Proposal (RFP) was not one of the eligibility condition in the notice inviting bids however, their technical bid was held to be not qualified in terms of the said clause. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the notice inviting bid under the head “list of eligibility and qualification requirements of bidders” clauses 2.2.2.1 to 2.2.2.3 (ii) of the RFP has been listed but not 2.2.2.8 (i).

Issue notice. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India accepts notice and waives formal notice thereof. Counter affidavit may be filed within a period of two weeks and one week thereafter, to the petitioner to file rejoinder if they so desire.

List on 07.11.2023.

I.A. No. 01 of 2023.

This is an application for stay of the impugned letters/orders dated 05.09.2023 and 18.09.2023 passed by the respondent and for further direction to open the financial bid of the petitioner as well. Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned Senior Counsel submits that the notice inviting bids specifically listed eligibility and qualification requirements of bidders which did not specify that clause 2.2.2.8 (i) of the RFP as one of them. However, the petitioner was held to be technically not qualified as other member of the joint venture did not meet the required criteria of financial capacity as per clause 2.2.2.8 (i) of the RFP. It is his further case that in earlier instances the respondent did not have such a clause.

The impugned technical bid opening summary dated 05.09.2023 reflects that the petitioner did not qualify as per clause 2.2.2.8 (i) of the RFP. The impugned communication dated 18.09.2023 informed the petitioner that it had been disqualified by the technical evaluation committee and by the screening committee inter alia for non submission of audited annual reports for the last five financial years by the other member of the joint venture (M/s Fuerzaa Projects LLP) in accordance with clause 2.2.2.8 (i) of the RFP. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a joint consideration of the qualifications of the partners of the joint venture they would meet the necessary criteria. The writ court’s jurisdiction to interfere in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, malafide, bias or irrationality. The petitioner has not made out a case for this court to grant the prayers as prayed for in this application. It is accordingly rejected.