Bsa Corporation LTD Thr Its Authorized Representative vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation And Ors

Held

The Court held that the grievance regarding the GST Clearance Certificate was redressed by the Respondent Corporation's statement that GST Payment Challans would be accepted, and a corrigendum would be issued. Regarding the definition of 'similar work,' the Court found the Petitioner's argument misconceived. It reasoned that Clause (19) of the tender document provided general information on designations and manpower requirements, while Clause (20) contained the specific requirements for the two tenders. The Petitioner's calculation of a 65%:35% ratio based on the table in Clause (19) was deemed incorrect, as that table was not intended for calculating the 70%:30% ratio for work experience. The Court clarified that the work experience requirement was indeed for supplying manpower in a 70%:30% ratio of technical to non-technical manpower in an earlier work. Finally, concerning the discrepancy in the NIT, the Court held that the tender document clearly specified two distinct tenders (Tender No.3/1/2024-2025 and Tender No.3/2/2024-2025) with separate requirements, costs, and EMDs. A note in the NIT also clarified that bidders could participate in both but would be eligible for only one package. Therefore, the omission of one tender number at one place in the NIT did not vitiate the entire tender process. The Court found no reason to interfere with the writ petition.

Facts

The Petitioner, BSA Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the tender process for selecting an agency for manpower supply at various hospitals under the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation's Medical Department. The Petitioner raised objections regarding two tender conditions. The first concerned the requirement to submit a GST Registration Certificate and GST Clearance Certificate up to March 2023. The Corporation, in its affidavit, stated it had orally informed pre-bid meeting attendees that GST Payment Challans would be accepted instead, and a corrigendum would be issued. The second objection related to the definition of 'similar work' under the minimum eligibility criteria, specifically the ratio of Medical/Para Medical/Technical manpower to total manpower supplied in a single work order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the requirement to submit a GST Clearance Certificate, which the Respondent Corporation stated would be replaced by GST Payment Challans, was a valid ground for challenge? - Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner initially objected to the GST Clearance Certificate requirement. - Respondent's argument: The Respondent stated orally during the pre-bid meeting that GST Payment Challans would be accepted, and a corrigendum would follow, effectively addressing this grievance. 2. Whether the definition of 'similar work' in the tender document, requiring a 70% ratio of Medical/Para Medical/Technical manpower to total manpower, was inconsistent with Clause (19) of the tender document, which the Petitioner calculated to yield a 65%:35% ratio? - Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner contended that the definition of 'similar work' was inconsistent with the table in Clause (19), making it impossible to meet the 70% requirement based on the provided designations and categories. - Respondent's argument: The Respondent argued that Clause (19) provided general information about manpower requirements, and the specific requirements for the tenders were in Clause (20). The Petitioner's calculation based on Clause (19) was misconceived. 3. Whether a discrepancy in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), where only one tender number (Tender No.3/2/2024-2025) was mentioned instead of two (Tender No.3/1/2024-2025 and Tender No.3/2/2024-2025), vitiated the tender process? - Petitioner's argument: The Petitioner argued that the omission of one tender number in the NIT rendered the tender process invalid. - Respondent's argument: The Respondent pointed to the tender document itself, which clearly detailed both tenders, their respective hospitals, costs, and Earnest Money Deposits, and noted a clause allowing participation in both but awarding work for only one package, thus the NIT discrepancy did not vitiate the process.