M/S Global Facilities vs. State Of Punjab And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated September 17, 2017 (Annexure P-19). This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, by passing a speaking order, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The decision on the representation is to be completed within ten days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The core issue of the validity of the tender award and the eligibility of respondent No. 5 was not decided on merits but was relegated to the administrative authority for a reasoned decision.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Global Facilities, had been providing Housekeeping and Security Services under a contract awarded in 2014, which expired on September 15, 2017. The contract was previously terminated but reinstated by the High Court. The respondents floated a new tender for the period September 16, 2017, to March 31, 2018. The petitioner claims to have submitted all required documents, including GST challans. However, they allege that respondent No. 5, the successful bidder, did not submit a GST challan but was still declared technically qualified. The petitioner also contends that no pre-bid meeting was held, and objections were not considered, leading to the award of the contract to respondent No. 5 on September 15, 2017. The petitioner made multiple representations to the respondents seeking cancellation of the tender, which were not acted upon, prompting the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the award of the contract for Housekeeping and Security Services to respondent No. 5 is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-compliance with tender conditions, specifically the submission of a GST challan, and violation of procedural fairness, such as the absence of a pre-bid meeting and opportunity for objections? Petitioner's Arguments: - Respondent No. 5 was ineligible as it failed to submit the copy of the challan for deposit of GST, a mandatory requirement as per the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines (Circular dated 29.4.2014, Annexure P-5) and tender conditions. - The tender process was flawed due to the absence of a pre-bid meeting and denial of an opportunity to raise objections, contrary to established tender procedures. - The petitioner had an excellent record and was technically and financially eligible. Revenue/State's Arguments: - No specific arguments are recorded in the judgment for the respondents.