TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... JUDGMENT PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6308/2023, whereby, the writ petition filed by the Appellant - Firm has been dismissed. 2. The petition was filed aggrieved of the order dated 20.4.2023 directing the petitioner firm to discontinue the work of bagging, loading and stacking and diamond (bye-pass) work from 21.4.2023 and against the tender summary report dated 20.4.2023 showing respondent no.5 to have obtained L-1 rank above the petitioner with L-2 rank. 3. It was inter alia indicated that Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation Limited issued an E-bid for bagging, loading and stacking re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to supplementing of documents after opening of the technical bid, the notice of shortfall issued was in violation of the said clauses. It was alleged that bidding process was done with the sole intention to extend the undue favour to respondent no.5. 9. The allegations made in the petition were contested based on preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as alternative remedy was available. The contract of the petitioner firm came to an end on 20.4.2023 and the respondent no.5 has already started work w.e.f. 21.4.2023, the prohibition contained in Clauses 7 & 8 has no application. 10. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as respondent no.5 has already been awarded th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounts to substantive change to qualification information. 14. Learned counsel also made submissions that the technical bid for lack of the said document was liable to be rejected and if rejected, the petitioner firm was L-1 and was entitled to be granted the work order / continue with his work, which he was already performing to the satisfaction of the respondents and, therefore, the petition should have been accepted by the Court. 15. Reliance was placed on PSEB v. Bhatia International Ltd.: (2006) 13 SCC 284 and Goldyan Technoseve Ltd. v. State of M.P.: (2011) 5 SCC 103 and Maharashtra Housing Development Authority v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Limited: (2018) 3 SCC 13. 16. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 21. The claim of the appellant - petitioner essentially is that as the respondent no.5 the successful bidder had failed to fill in column 13 of the E-bid and upload the document in this regard, which required him to produce the latest inspection report from the PF department, his technical bid should have been rejected and, thereafter, his financial bid should not have been opened, wherein, the appellant would have been L-1 and entitled to the work order. 22. The terms and conditions of the bid pertaining to the Etender inter alia required uploading of all the documents as required in the technical bid and also provided that no change or correction would be pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offered, or permitted, except to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the committee in the evaluation of the financial bids. (4) No substantive change to qualification information or to a submission including changes aimed at making an unqualified bidder, qualified or an unresponsive submission, responsive shall be sought, offered or permitted. (5) All communications generated under this rule shall be included in the record of the procurement proceedings." 26. A perusal of the above Rule reveals that the same gives a discretion to the Bid Evaluation Committee to ask any bidder for a clarification in writing and a response should also be in writing. The Rule prohibits change in the prices or the subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....waive any nonconformities in the bid that do not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission, the bid shall be deemed to be substantially responsive. (2) The bid evaluation committee may request the bidder to submit the necessary information or document like audited statement of accounts, PAN, etc. within a reasonable period of time. Failure of the bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its bid. (3) The bid evaluation committee may rectify nonmaterial nonconformities or omissions on the basis of the information or documentation received from the bidder under sub-rule (2). 31. The Rule authorizes the Bid Evaluation Committee to waive any non-conformities, which do not constitute a m....