RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CMPDI.

2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.12.2023 of the Tender Evaluation Committee of the respondent No.2; whereby and whereunder the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been erroneously rejected which is against the mandate of Clause 13.2 of the NIT itself.

3. It seems that for two separate work orders, the petitioner had applied against both and since certain shortcomings were found in the uploaded document, the bid of the petitioner was rejected which led to filing of a separate writ application being W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024. It appears that the reason of rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner in Tender Reference No. CMPDI/CMC/2023-24/20 and Tender Reference No. CMPDI/CMC/2023-24/13 was that the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria specified in the bid clause.

4. In W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024 an order was passed on 23.01.2024 dismissing the writ application against which a review application was also filed being Civil Review No. 16 of 2024, which has been dismissed today in a separate order.

5. Clause 13.2 and Clause 13.6 of the terms and conditions of the tender occupy an important place to the effect that Clause 13.2 has been restricted by virtue of Clause 13.6 and the same has been considered in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2024 in the order dated 23.01.2024, the relevant of which reads as follows:-

"7. Relying on clause 13.6 of the terms and conditions of the tender rather Mr. Mehta has vehemently submitted that the sphere of clause 13.2 has been restricted by virtue of clause 13.6 as the same seeks clarification only with respect to the documents which have been submitted and not with respect to any shortcomings or any documents which have not been submitted by the bidder. It further appears from the specific terms and conditions that the bidder should upload an undertaking with the bid to the effect that the bidder should not be under liquidation or similar proceeding and should not be bankrupt. The buyer and its bid specific terms and condition at clause-1, therefore clearly reveals that the bidder financial standing has to be uploaded along with bid documents and admittedly the said document was never uploaded with the bid documents by the petitioner and therefore merely taking recourse to clause 13.2 of the terms and conditions of the tender documents will not facilitate the claim of the petitioner, rather clause 13.2 as indicated above has to be read with the rider as contemplated in clause 13.6 of the terms and conditions of the tender documents as well as clause 1 of the buyer added bid specific terms and conditions. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that an illegality has been committed by the respondent-CMPDI in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of the shortcomings referred to in the same.

8. Apart from the above, it appears that the respondent no.3 has been declared as L-1 and the work order as submitted by Mr. Mehta is on the verge of being issued to him. We do not therefore, in the circumstances noted above, feel inclined to accede to the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this writ application and consequently this writ application stands dismissed."

6. Since the issue in the present writ application has already been dealt with by us and the writ application has been dismissed, we do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 of the Tender Evaluation Committee of the respondent No.2 and consequently, this writ application also stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.