S S Filling Station vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.S. Filling Station, a proprietorship firm dealing in petroleum retail, participated in two e-tender processes initiated by Respondent No. 2 for the supply of DORB (D-Oiled Rice Bran) and other items. In the first tender notice dated December 13, 2023, the petitioner was technically disqualified because they applied for rectification in their GST HSN code after the tender publication. In the second tender notice dated February 23, 2024, the petitioner was again disqualified in the technical evaluation, this time on the ground of non-availability of an experience certificate. The tender was awarded to M/s Laxmi Foods for Rs. 13,88,25,000/-. The petitioner alleged mala fide attitude and sought quashing of the eligibility conditions and the disqualification order, praying for their bid to be considered technically responsive.

Held

The Court held that the condition of work experience is permissible under the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 20(2)(Ka), which allows for minimum levels of experience as a criterion for eligibility. Furthermore, the Court noted that if such a condition was omitted in an initial tender, it could be introduced in a re-tender process under Rule 20(16) of the same Rules. The respondents provided evidence of a prior tender notice dated May 2, 2023, which also contained a work experience condition, supporting their contention that it was a valid and consistently applied requirement. Therefore, the Court found that the tender was awarded in accordance with the law, and the petitioner's disqualification was justified based on the stipulated eligibility criteria. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether eligibility condition no. (Jha) and condition no. 30 of the General Conditions in the tender notice dated February 23, 2024, which require work experience, are arbitrary and restrict competition, thus violating procurement rules? This issue turns on the interpretation of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the condition of work experience could not have been included in the tender notice, as it unduly restricted competition. They argued that this condition was a mistake in the first tender and was rectified in the second tender, implying it was not a mandatory requirement. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the condition of work experience is permissible under Rule 20(2)(Ka) of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017. They further contended that if such a condition was not mentioned in the initial tender, it could be included in a re-tender process under Rule 20(16) of the same Rules. They also presented evidence of a previous tender notice dated May 2, 2023, which also included a work experience condition, demonstrating it was a consistent requirement.