M/S Green Earth Infrastructure PVT LTD Roop Nagar Jammu Th Jetender Pal Singh vs. U T Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary Pw R And B Deptt And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Green Earth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., challenged the Technical Evaluation Summary Sheet/Report dated February 14, 2024, and the Financial Bid Opening Summary Sheet dated February 14, 2024. These documents, issued by the Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2), declared respondent No. 4 as technically qualified and the lowest bidder for the construction of a road in District Rajouri. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 4 had concealed its litigation history, a mandatory disclosure requirement under Clause 4.4(l) of the Standard Bidding Documents (SBD). The petitioner also raised objections regarding another bidder, M/s Vijay Suri. Despite the petitioner's objections and a report from respondent No. 3 confirming respondent No. 4's litigation history, respondent No. 2 proceeded to declare respondent No. 4 as responsive and the lowest bidder.

Held

The Court held that the condition regarding the disclosure of litigation history, while important, was not so fundamental as to render the bid invalid if not disclosed. The Court found that the deviation did not substantially affect the scope, quality, or performance of the work, nor did it unfairly impact the competitive position of other bidders. The decision to waive the condition was deemed not irrational or arbitrary, especially in light of Clause 25.2 of Section-1 of the SBD, which allows for substantially responsive bids. The Court noted that no other bidder was disqualified for a similar deviation, thus no discrimination occurred. The Court also found the petitioner's mala fide allegations to be without merit, as the Chief Engineer attended meetings virtually. Furthermore, the significant difference in the financial bids, with respondent No. 4 quoting substantially lower, indicated a benefit to the public exchequer. The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition in the Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) requiring bidders to disclose their litigation history is mandatory, and if so, could the official respondents waive it? The petitioner argued that the condition was mandatory and could not be waived, citing Clause 4.4(l) of the SBD. The respondents contended that the condition was not mandatory and could be waived. 2. Whether the actions of the official respondents were mala fide, specifically concerning the participation of the Chief Engineer in the evaluation process. The petitioner alleged mala fides, stating the Chief Engineer was on leave during critical evaluation dates. The respondents countered by stating the Chief Engineer attended meetings virtually.