GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAJU ALI V/S OIL AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 1:

1. Heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Newar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to reconsider the techno commercial bid of the Respondent No.5 on the basis of the opinion rendered by the Independent External Monitors (IEM).

3. The facts which give rise to the instant proceedings are that the Respondent No.3 had issued an Invitation to Bid on 02.02.2024 for carrying out fabrication works, painting of Rigs & equipment and Bunk House repairing for a period of 3 years for Drilling Services, Assam Asset. The period of the contract was for 3 years which may be automatically extended for the time required to complete the job in progress on the date of expiry of the contract on the same rates, terms and conditions.

4. It is further apparent from the records, more particularly the Invitation to Bid that the Bids were required to be submitted in two parts, i.e. the technical bid and the financial bid. For the purpose of evaluation of the technical bid, there is a document in the name and style of "Bid Evaluation Criteria" (BEC) which is a part of the said Invitation to Bid containing the parameters. Clause 2 stipulates the eligibility and experience of the bidder.

5. It further appears from the records that as many as 5 bidders participated in the said bid process. The technical bid of the Respondent No.5 was rejected as would appear from the email dated 29.04.2024 for two reasons. First, that the Respondent No.5 did not fulfill BEC Clause B.2.1(a)(ii) and secondly for non-compliance to Clause B.1.4. In the said email, it was further mentioned that the work orders/PO so submitted by the Respondent No.5 was less than Rs.2.01 crores, and as such, not qualified in terms with Clause B.2.1(a)(ii). It was also mentioned that the Respondent No.5 did not submit a valid labour license or an undertaking. 6. The Respondent No.5 on coming to learn about its bid being rejected, submitted a communication to the Respondent No.3 dated 01.05.2024 stating inter-alia that the rejection of the technical bid of the Respondent No.5 was not proper in as much as the Respondent No.5 was eligible in terms with Clause B.2.1(a)(ii). It was also mentioned in the said communication dated 01.05.2024 that the other ground for rejection of the technical bid which was non-submission of the labour license and/or the undertaking was not in consonance with the Materials Management Manual Clause No.13.4.3.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqEpDm9jdAecBpJs7BwEUXChspk9dfUGvAMT9o885y6HS&caseno=WP(C)/3345/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010131142024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.