Saunak Films Through Proprietor Tusharsinh S/O Dineshsinh Rajput vs. District Election Officer And Collector, Devbhumi Dwarka

Held

The Court noted that the election process had concluded and the work awarded under the disputed tenders had been executed and completed. Therefore, the petitions were rendered infructuous. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the alleged non-disclosure or suppression of relevant facts by Respondent No. 2, which could be considered for future contract work. The Court relied on a clause within the tender documents that empowers the District Electoral Officer to consider disqualifying a contractor for future work in case of breach of contract, cheating, or financial loss to the government. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioner to submit an application/complaint to the concerned competent officer within 15 days. This officer would then consider the application independently on its merits and in light of applicable provisions, including those for disqualifying contractors for future work, without being influenced by any previous orders. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's allegations or the respondents' replies.

Facts

The petitioners, Saunak Films, filed multiple Special Civil Applications challenging the decision of the District Election Officer and Collector, Anand (Respondent No. 1) to qualify Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in tender processes for videography services for the Loksabha Election 2019. The petitioners contended that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not fulfill prescribed conditions and failed to submit requisite documents, including a GST clearance certificate for Respondent No. 3. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 2 had a history of unsatisfactory performance in a previous election, leading to the termination of its work order, and that this fact was suppressed in its bid. The election process and awarded work orders have since been executed and completed. The Respondent No. 1 filed a reply affidavit stating the tender process was carried out in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the District Election Officer and Collector (Respondent No. 1) erred in qualifying Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the tender process for videography services for the Loksabha Election 2019, despite alleged deficiencies in their bid documents and non-fulfillment of prescribed conditions, particularly concerning the GST clearance certificate for Respondent No. 3 and the suppression of past unsatisfactory performance by Respondent No. 2? (Question of law and mixed fact/law, turning on tender conditions and principles of fair bidding). Petitioner's Arguments: - Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should have been disqualified due to non-fulfillment of conditions and submission of incomplete documents. - Respondent No. 3 failed to submit a GST clearance certificate, a mandatory requirement. - Respondent No. 2 suppressed material facts regarding its previous unsatisfactory performance and termination of a work order, which should have led to disqualification. - The District Election Officer arbitrarily ignored these deficiencies. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The tender process was conducted in accordance with law and the decisions of the Tender Evaluation Committee. - The petitioner was qualified but was L3, and the contract was awarded to L1 (Respondent No. 2) as per financial rules. - The election process is concluded and the work executed, rendering the petitions infructuous.