M/S Green Earth Rls Jv Th Its Director Jalbir Singh Roop Nagar Jammu vs. U T Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary Pmgsy Jkrrda Jammu And Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to upload the relevant documents before the cut-off date as per the SBD. Consequently, the petitioner could not be allowed to modify or add documents that were not uploaded at the relevant time. The Court found that the respondents had rightly passed the impugned order dated December 5, 2022, by treating the petitioner's bid as non-responsive due to the absence of Company Audit Reports for the last five financial years, as required by Clause 4.4 B (a) III (e). The Court noted that this condition was mandatory as per the NIT. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in it. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the decision taken by the respondents on the petitioner's complaint, if the cause of action survived. The Court also directed the Chief Engineer to be vigilant and not pass orders without reference to number and date in the future.

Facts

M/s Green Earth Private Limited (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 5, 2022, passed by respondent No. 2, which declared the petitioner's bid non-responsive. The reason cited was the submission of Company Audit Reports for only two financial years instead of the required last five, as stipulated in Clause 4.4 B (a) III (e) of the Standard Bid Document (SBD). The petitioner contended that they had uploaded all required documents, including the five-year audit reports, but a technical glitch on the portal prevented their full visibility. They also argued that Clause 22.6 of the SBD provided a five-working-day window for rectifying curable irregularities after the evaluation of Part-I of the bid, and that Clause 4.4 B (a) III (h) allowed for the submission of original documents before the allotment of work. The respondents countered that the scanned copies uploaded on the portal were indeed for only two years, and the uploaded document at Annexure R-3 differed from the one submitted with the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bid was rightly declared non-responsive for failing to upload Company Audit Reports for the last five financial years as required by Clause 4.4 B (a) III (e) of the Standard Bid Document (SBD). 2. Whether Clause 22.6 of the SBD, which allows a five-working-day period for submitting complaints after the evaluation of Part-I of the bid, permits the rectification of missing mandatory documents like Company Audit Reports. 3. Whether Clause 4.4 B (a) III (h) of the SBD, which permits the submission of original documents by a successful bidder before work allotment, overrides the requirement of uploading all necessary documents at the bid submission stage. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had uploaded all five years of audit reports, and any discrepancy was due to a technical glitch on the e-procurement portal. They relied on Clause 22.6 to assert their right to a post-evaluation review period for rectification and Clause 4.4 B (a) III (h) to argue that original documents could be submitted later. They also claimed arbitrary action by the respondents, citing a prior instance where the same set of documents led to their eligibility. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the scanned copies of the Company Audit Reports uploaded on the portal were only for two financial years, not five, as required by Clause 4.4 B (a) III (e). They argued that the uploaded document was different from the one submitted with the petition and that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory tender conditions. They also cited legal precedents emphasizing limited judicial review in tender matters.