Mr. Moti Lal Daga And Anr. vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner were misplaced. Regarding Respondent No. 3, the Court found that the submitted MSME Certificate and Bank Certificate, showing commencement of operations in March 2014, satisfied the tender conditions. For Respondent No. 4, the Court accepted the certificate showing the annual average turnover for the specified financial years, considering the year-end date of 30th September 2019. Concerning Respondent No. 5, the Court determined that the fixed deposit made in the name of D.D.O., Physical Education, was an encashable document and thus valid, despite the omission of 'GNCTD'. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish any mala fide or illegality in the respondents' actions. The ratio decidendi is that tender conditions must be interpreted reasonably, and minor technical discrepancies that do not affect the substance or encashability of documents should not lead to disqualification. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the award of e-tenders for costumes and related items for Independence Day and Republic Day celebrations. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3 failed to provide satisfactory certification of its existence for five years, Respondent No. 4 did not submit a certificate showing an annual average turnover of Rs. 27,00,000/- for three consecutive years, and Respondent No. 5 failed to deposit earnest money in favour of D.D.O. (Phy. Edn), GNCTD. The tenders were awarded to Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The respondents produced the original tender file and records for the Court's examination.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 3 complied with Condition 2.2 of the tender document by providing satisfactory certification of its existence for the past five years? 2. Whether Respondent No. 4 complied with Condition 2.1 of the tender document by submitting a certificate showing an annual average turnover of Rs. 27,00,000/- for three consecutive years? 3. Whether Respondent No. 5 complied with Condition 8.7.1 of the tender document regarding the earnest money deposit? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 3's certification was unsatisfactory, Respondent No. 4 failed to provide the required turnover certificate, and Respondent No. 5's earnest money deposit was not made in the correct favour. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that Respondent No. 3 submitted an MSME Certificate and a Bank Certificate showing commencement of operations from March 2014. They argued that Respondent No. 4 provided a certificate showing the required annual average turnover for Financial Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, with the year ending on 30th September 2019. Regarding Respondent No. 5, they submitted that a fixed deposit was prepared in the name of D.D.O., Physical Education, and the absence of 'GNCTD' did not render it infirm as it was encashable.