M/S Jeet Ram And Sons vs. Govind Ballabh Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was not justified. Citing the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation, the Court distinguished between essential conditions of eligibility and ancillary conditions. The Court found that while the petitioner paid the tender document fee through a bank not specified in the tender notice, this was not an essential condition. Crucially, the University had encashed the bank draft, realizing the fee. The Court reasoned that after realizing the amount, it was not open for the respondents to reject the bid on the ground of the bank not being specified, implying that the respondents had waived this requirement. The Court found the respondents' reliance on Central Coalfields Limited distinguishable. Therefore, the Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's technical bid. The operative direction was to quash the rejection order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jeet Ram & Sons, submitted a bid for an Annual University Rate Contract for supply of Animal & Poultry Feed Ingredients & Feed Additives. The Notice Inviting Tender required the bid document fee of ₹2,240/- (including ₹240/- GST) to be paid via Demand Draft from one of four specified banks. The petitioner paid this fee using a draft from ICICI Bank, which was not among the specified banks. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on this ground. The petitioner had previously inquired about using other banks and was informed they could do so, but would have to pay 3% extra collection charges. The petitioner's bid document fee draft was encashed by the University on September 24, 2020. The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection order and a direction to declare them technically qualified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, solely on the ground that the tender document fee was paid through a bank draft issued by a bank not specified in the Notice Inviting Tender, constitutes a material deviation, thereby warranting rejection, in light of Clause 2.20.4 of the Instructions to Bidders and Clause 3.2.2 of the bid document, which allegedly states the bid document fee is not part of the technical bid. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that paying the tender document fee through a draft from a different bank did not amount to a material deviation as defined in Clause 2.20.4, which lists specific conditions like Bid Security, Warranty, etc., as material. They also argued, citing Clause 3.2.2, that the bid document fee is not part of the technical bid. Furthermore, they submitted that since the University encashed the bank draft, they could not reject the bid on this ground, implying a waiver of the condition. They relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Ramesh Chand Prashar. Respondents' arguments: The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Central Coalfields Limited and another Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others.