M/S Mahamaya Engg. And Constructions Th. Sushant Gupta vs. State Th. Municipal Corporation Jammu And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was uncalled for, illegal, and arbitrary. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed uploaded a turnover certificate, and the argument that it was not in the prescribed Form 16-A or 26-A was without basis, as neither the NIT nor the Scheme specified such a format. The Court also rejected the argument that the turnover certificate did not specifically relate to works contracts, citing performance certificates that demonstrated the petitioner's experience in construction activities. The Court emphasized that if there were any doubts, the Contract Committee should have sought additional proof rather than rejecting the bid outright. The Court applied the principle that the decision-making process must be lawful. Consequently, the rejection of the technical bid and the allotment order in favour of respondent No. 5 were quashed. The Court directed that the work done by respondent No. 5 be measured by an appointed Commissioner, and the approximate amount determined would be payable to respondent No. 5 from the petitioner's payment for the balance work. Any dispute regarding the measured amount would be adjudicated through arbitration. The Court also noted that the financial bid of the petitioner was significantly lower than that of respondent No. 5.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahamaya Engg. And Constructions, challenged the rejection of its Technical Bid by the Jammu Municipal Corporation for the up-gradation of Shamshan Ghat at Jogi Gate. The NIT stipulated that bidders must upload a Pan Card, Registration Card, and GST details. The petitioner claimed to have uploaded all requisite documents, including a turnover certificate from a Chartered Accountant showing an annual turnover of Rs. 2,30,31,498.00 for FY 2017-18. The Municipal Corporation rejected the bid, citing "Fee/PreQual/Technical." The respondents initially argued the turnover certificate was not uploaded, but later contended it was not in the prescribed Form 16-A or 26-A, and did not specifically relate to works contracts. The petitioner countered with works performance certificates showing significant construction work executed for the Municipal Corporation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's Technical Bid by the Jammu Municipal Corporation was lawful, considering the uploaded turnover certificate? 2. Whether the NIT or the Self Help Group Scheme mandated the turnover certificate to be in a specific format (Form 16-A or 26-A)? 3. Whether the turnover certificate uploaded by the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated its eligibility for the work contract? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it had complied with all conditions by uploading a valid turnover certificate. They contended that the NIT and the Scheme did not specify any particular format for the turnover certificate, and therefore, rejecting the bid on this ground was arbitrary and illegal. They also presented evidence of substantial work executed, demonstrating their capacity. The petitioner relied on the principle that courts should test the decision-making process, not the decision itself, as per Supreme Court judgments. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (Jammu Municipal Corporation and private respondent No. 5) argued that the petitioner failed to upload the turnover certificate. Subsequently, they contended that even if uploaded, the certificate was not in the prescribed Form 16-A or 26-A and did not specifically relate to works contracts. The private respondent further argued that the turnover could have been from other activities. They cited judgments like Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG India Limited to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review.