M/S Gala Pro -Tek LLP vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gala Pro-Tek LLP, challenged its technical disqualification in a tender process for epoxy treatment of a dam. The petitioner had participated in a previous tender for the same work, where it was the lowest bidder but the tender was cancelled due to a single qualified bidder. The petitioner's completion certificate was verified then. A fresh tender was issued, and the petitioner submitted its bid. The respondents disqualified the petitioner for not submitting a valid experience certificate as per Clause 4.2(b) of Section I of the Instructions to Bidders and for being banned from business dealings with NHDC. The petitioner argued that the certificate was valid and the ban was not applicable. The respondents also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, stating the bid was submitted by a Joint Venture (JV) while the petition was filed by one partner.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the bid was submitted by a Joint Venture (JV) comprising AQUAFILL and M/s Gala Pro-Tek LLP, but the petition was filed by M/s Gala Pro-Tek LLP as a single entity. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Gammon India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, the Court stated that a JV is a legal entity and action by only one party cannot be construed as action by the JV. Furthermore, the Court found that the completion certificates submitted by the petitioner were not in order as specified in Clause 4.2(b) of Section I – Instructions to Bidders. The Court also held that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose the ban imposed by NHDC, which is a ground for disqualification. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to point out any arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or malafide in the respondents' actions. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of M/s Gala Pro-Tek LLP when the bid was submitted as a Joint Venture (JV) with AQUAFILL, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Gammon India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai? 2. Whether the completion certificates submitted by the petitioner are in order as per Clause 4.2(b) of Section I – Instructions to Bidders? 3. Whether the petitioner suppressed material facts by failing to disclose the ban imposed by NHDC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that its completion certificate was verified in the previous tender and should be considered valid. It argued that the ban by NHDC did not fall under the disqualifying clauses of the tender document. The petitioner also asserted that the respondents had previously accepted its bid, implying its technical qualification. Respondents' arguments: The State/respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed by a single entity (M/s Gala Pro-Tek LLP) when the bid was submitted by a Joint Venture. They further contended that the completion certificates were not in order and that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of being banned by NHDC. They also argued that the earlier acceptance of the petitioner's bid in the first tender was a mistake.