Rayaiz Ahmed vs. The Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir Th Secretary P W R And B Deptt And Others.

Facts

The petitioner, Rayaiz Ahmed, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his technical bid for a tender for the construction of a motorable road. The e-NIT was issued on January 1, 2020, with the last date for bid submission on January 9, 2020, and online opening on January 10, 2020. The petitioner claimed to have uploaded all requisite documents as per clause 17 of the tender document. He was informed via a message that his bid was rejected due to the non-upload of turnover, completion certificates, and details of ongoing projects. The petitioner contended that he had submitted all documents and that the technical bids were not opened on the scheduled date without intimation, and he was not given an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies. The respondents, represented by the Union Territory of J&K and others, argued that the petitioner failed to submit mandatory documents as per general terms and conditions, specifically clause 4.3, and that the petitioner did not file a rejoinder to their objections, leaving their stand uncontroverted.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's technical bid was rightly rejected. The Court found that the petitioner had not filed a rejoinder to the objections filed by the respondents, which specifically stated that the petitioner did not submit completion certificates, turnover certificates, and details of ongoing works, which were mandatory for technical evaluation. This failure to file a rejoinder meant that the respondents' stand remained uncontroverted, raising a disputed question of fact. The Court noted that the petitioner only claimed to have uploaded documents as per clause 17 of the NIT, but the respondents' stand was that other documents as per clause 4.3 of the general terms and conditions were also required and were not furnished. Regarding the petitioner's presence on the bid opening date, the Court observed that the respondents denied his presence, and again, no rejoinder was filed to controvert this. Even if the petitioner was not present, the Court stated that the presence of bidders was not mandatory. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's allegation that respondent No. 5 was given an opportunity to submit documents later, clarifying that respondent No. 5 was asked to furnish hard copies of already uploaded documents and additional security as the lowest bidder. Therefore, the Court found no error in the rejection of the technical bid and dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's technical bid was wrongly rejected due to the alleged non-upload of mandatory documents, specifically turnover, completion certificates, and details of ongoing projects, contrary to the petitioner's claim of having uploaded them. 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in his bid documents, and if so, whether this denial was justified. 3. Whether the respondents' action of not opening the technical bids on the scheduled date of January 10, 2020, without informing the petitioner, vitiated the tendering process. Petitioner's Arguments: - All requisite documents as per clause 17 of the tender document were uploaded online. - There might have been a technical error on the respondents' end or documents were not downloaded. - The technical bids were not opened on January 10, 2020, without intimation, and the petitioner was not present to clarify doubts. - The petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to complete any deficient documents. - Respondent No. 5 submitted data without a Chartered Accountant's certificate for turnover, unlike the petitioner's alleged compliance. Respondents' Arguments: - The petitioner failed to submit mandatory documents as per clause 4.3 of the general terms and conditions, which were in addition to clause 17. - The petitioner did not plead that these additional documents were submitted. - The technical bids were opened on January 15, 2020, due to unavoidable circumstances, and the petitioner was not present. - The technical bids were downloaded and evaluated by a multi-member committee, which found the petitioner's bid deficient. - The petitioner did not file a rejoinder to controvert the respondents' objections, making their stand uncontroverted.