Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the appellant's technical bid was rightly rejected. The tender document explicitly required a "Self-Attested copy of the (EPF) registration certificate with number issued by (EPF) Department" as a supporting document for the bidder's registration for EPF. While the appellant had uploaded the EPF document, it was admittedly not self-attested. The Court found that there was no condition in the tender document allowing for rectification of such mistakes. The remark "Not Complied with Technical Specification" in the bid list was consistent with the failure to submit the required self-attested document, which falls under the "Completeness of the bid" criterion of the Procurement Manual. Therefore, no mala fide or arbitrariness could be attributed to the respondents. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Maa Baglamukhi Construction, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a tender issued by MPPKVV Co. Ltd. for civil works. The appellant's bid was rejected with the remark "Not complied with Technical Specification." The appellant contended that no specific reason was provided initially, and the reason later given in the reply (non-furnishing of a self-attested EPF document, despite the document being filed) was trivial and aimed at accommodating another bidder. The appellant argued that it was the lowest bidder (L1) with a significant price difference. The respondents argued that the bid was rightly rejected due to the non-compliance of self-attestation of the EPF document, and there was no provision for rectification of such mistakes in the tender document.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the appellant's technical bid for non-furnishing of a self-attested EPF document, despite the document being submitted, was arbitrary and illegal, violating the principles of natural justice and the MPPKVVCL Procurement Manual? - Petitioner's argument: The rejection was arbitrary as no specific reason was initially given, and the subsequent reason of non-self-attestation was trivial. The appellant relied on Supreme Court judgments in M/s Star Enterprises, Mohinder Singh Gill, Poddar Steel Corporation, and Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., and an Allahabad High Court decision, arguing that the reason assigned in the reply could not be considered if not initially communicated and that the bid was L1. - Revenue/State's argument: The rejection was justified because the EPF document was not self-attested as required by the tender conditions. The respondents argued that there was no condition in the tender document for rectification of inadvertent mistakes, and thus, no opportunity could be provided to the appellant.