Ganpati Sales vs. Baba Farid University Of Health Sciences Faridkot And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Ganpati Sales, challenges a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated June 28, 2024, issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (respondent No. 1) to Amandeep Chanana (respondent No. 2) for providing parking services. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 submitted bids pursuant to a tender notice dated March 2, 2024. Both were declared technically compliant. Respondent No. 2's price bid was Rs. 24,50,000, while the petitioner's was Rs. 24,20,180. The petitioner alleges respondent No. 2 lacked the required one-year experience in providing parking services to a reputed institution in the last three years, as stipulated in the tender. The petitioner also claims an inadvertent error in its price bid regarding Tax Collected at Source (TCS) and asserts its bid would be more competitive if correctly calculated, despite respondent No. 2's bid including GST and TCS.

Held

The Court acknowledged the time-sensitive nature of the matter and the need to secure the interests of all stakeholders. It directed respondent No. 1 (the University) to consider the petitioner's concerns and grievances raised in the petition and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law expeditiously. Crucially, the Court mandated that both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 must be heard before any such orders are passed, and formal communication regarding this hearing should be issued well in advance. The Court explicitly stated that its order does not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of either party's case, emphasizing that the competent authority will examine the grievances strictly in accordance with law. The Court expressed confidence that the authorities would look into the matter earnestly and pass reasoned orders at the earliest. No specific finding was made on the eligibility of respondent No. 2 or the correctness of the bid evaluation.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent No. 2 possessed the requisite eligibility criteria of having experience in providing parking services to a reputed institution for not less than one year in the last three years, as required by the tender document? 2. Whether the price bids of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were correctly evaluated, considering the alleged inadvertent error in the petitioner's bid regarding Tax Collected at Source (TCS) and the calculation of GST and TCS in respondent No. 2's bid? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that respondent No. 2 did not append any supporting document for the claimed experience, thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that its bid would be more competitive if the TCS component was correctly included and if respondent No. 2's bid calculation was rectified. The petitioner also notes its existing contract for the University's parking is valid until July 21, 2024. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent-University or respondent No. 2.