Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (5) TMI 1617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in the order impugned in Annexure-4 and subsequently by filing affidavit, the opposite parties have tried to justify their action by giving explanation, this Court is inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the order impugned in Annexure-4 dated 5.2.2016 and the consequential invitation of bid in Annexure-5 also cannot sustain and accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. - HON'BLE JUDGES VINEET SARAN, C.J. AND DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. For the Appellant : Gyaneswar Satpathy and B.P. Satpathy For the Respondents : P.K. Muduli, Addl. Govt. Advocate, N. Behuria, K. Dhal and P.K. Rout JUDGMENT DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. M/s. Shree Ganesh Construction, which is a partnership firm having Special Class Contractor licence unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authorities, the technical bid was opened in presence of the intending bidders in which the petitioner was found to be qualified in all respect, whereas technical bid so far as other bidders are concerned, were rejected. As per the technical bid evaluation summary (at page 16 of the brief), it has been, specifically mentioned that the petitioner has 'qualified' in the technical bid and subsequently on 15.1.2016 financial bid of the petitioner was opened in presence of opposite party No. 3 and other officers and it was found that the quoted price of the petitioner is less @ 12.07% of the total bid amount, consequently it is the acceptable amount as per clause 14 of the tender call notice. Accordingly, at page 18 of the brief, under t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oj Kumar Sharma, the so-called 4th partner of the firm, was not in order in view of their affidavit dated 24.09.2011 along with the clarification of Law Department dated 11.3.2002. Therefore, the bid of the petitioner could not be considered as responsive and hence, the tender was cancelled on 05.2.2016, thereby the authorities have not committed any illegalities or irregularities in cancelling the tender in Annexure-4, which does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 17 and Maa Binda Express Carrier and another V. North-East Frontier Railway And Others, (2014) 3 SCC 760. 4. Pleading .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the partnership deed (page-64). Hence, his experience and credentials cannot be taken in favour of M/s. Shree Ganesh Construction (clarification enclosed as P-27 of Tech. bid) M/s. Shree Ganesh Construction has not submitted any certificate on credentials in its name and hence it is presumed that it has no required credentials of its own. Hence, the firm is technically not qualified for the work. As all the bidders are disqualified technically for the work the tender is hereby cancelled. 6. In the counter affidavit filed, the reasons have been assigned, which are not available in the impugned order of cancellation filed before this Court in Annexure-4 dated 5.2.2016. More so, while cancelling the tender, the principles of natural justice ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat by a cryptic order the cancellation of tender has been made, which has been explained by filing subsequent affidavit, the same is not permissible under law. 9. Relying on Air India Ltd. (supra), learned counsel for the State has urged that in exercise of judicial review, the Court cannot interfere with the decision, but it can interfere with the decision-making process on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness and Court should exercise its discretionary power with great caution and only in furtherance of overwhelming public interest. 10. In Maa Binda Express Carrier (supra), it is held that submission of a bid/tender in response to a notice inviting tenders is only an offer which State or its agencies are under no obli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates