Court quashes respondent's qualification, upholds another. Petitioner denied contract, bid rejected.

The court quashed the qualification of respondent No. 5 due to non-compliance with the Earnest Money Deposit requirement but upheld the qualification of respondent No. 6. The petitioner's claim to award the contract to respondent No. 6 was dismissed as their bid offered significant cost savings. The court partially allowed the petition, setting aside respondent No. 5's qualification while rejecting the petitioner's request to consider their bid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of considering bids submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as technically qualified.
2. Compliance with eligibility criteria and submission requirements by respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
3. Impact of non-submission of full Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by respondent No. 5.
4. Consideration of Joint Venture experience for eligibility.
5. Language requirements for tender documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Considering Bids Submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Technically Qualified:
The petitioner challenged the action of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in considering the bids of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as technically qualified. The petitioner argued that the respondents did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and should have been disqualified. The court examined the compliance of the respondents with the tender requirements and the reasoning provided by SMC for their qualification.

2. Compliance with Eligibility Criteria and Submission Requirements by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6:
The petitioner contended that respondent No. 6, being a Joint Venture, did not submit all documents in English, and lacked the required agreement supporting turnover and experience. Similarly, respondent No. 5 was alleged to have not submitted the full EMD before the specified date and had documents in vernacular language. The court found that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted their bids in individual capacities and not as Joint Ventures. The court also noted that the tender documents did not mandate all documents to be in English, only the tender itself.

3. Impact of Non-Submission of Full EMD by Respondent No. 5:
The petitioner argued that respondent No. 5 did not submit the full EMD by the specified date, thus violating the essential condition of the tender. The court agreed, stating that the adjustment of EMD from one zone to another after the specified date was not permissible and contrary to the tender terms. Consequently, the bid of respondent No. 5 was technically disqualified.

4. Consideration of Joint Venture Experience for Eligibility:
The petitioner claimed that the experience as a Joint Venture should disqualify respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The court clarified that while bids from Joint Ventures were not considered, the experience of Joint Venture partners was valid for evaluation. The court found that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had the requisite experience and fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

5. Language Requirements for Tender Documents:
The petitioner argued that documents not in English should disqualify the bids. The court clarified that only the tender needed to be in English, not the supporting documents. The court found no violation in the submission of documents in vernacular languages by respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the action of SMC in considering the bid of respondent No. 5 as technically qualified due to non-compliance with the EMD requirement. However, the court upheld the qualification of respondent No. 6 and dismissed the petitioner’s claim to award the contract to them, noting that respondent No. 6 offered a significantly lower bid, which would save the public exchequer approximately Rs. 1,96,00,000. The petition was partially allowed, setting aside the qualification of respondent No. 5 but rejecting the petitioner’s prayer to consider their bid.

---