Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The High Court held that the reasons assigned by the Technical Evaluation Committee for declaring the petitioner's bid non-responsive were not arbitrary and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Regarding the experience issue, the Court noted that the value of the hill side cutting work done by the petitioner as a sub-contractor was significantly less than the minimum required value of ₹32,04,262.67, as indicated by the respondents. Concerning the technical person, the Court found that the employer's opinion regarding the suitability of a 79-year-old individual for a high-altitude project was not subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, citing precedents like Central Coalfields Limited and Afcons Infrastructure Limited, which hold that courts should not interfere unless the decision-making process is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. The Court found no such grounds in this case, concluding that the Technical Evaluation Committee's decision was based on the NIT conditions and was not demonstrably flawed.

Facts

The petitioner, Basant Ballabh Punetha, a registered contractor, challenged the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee declaring his technical bid for a public works project as non-responsive. The reasons cited were an inappropriate experience certificate for hill side cutting work and suspicious details of the nominated technical person. The petitioner argued that his experience as a sub-contractor in hill side cutting work for M/s Ganga Prasad Punetha should have been considered, and that the nominated technical person's age should not have disqualified him without an opportunity to replace him. The respondents, including the State of Uttarakhand and the Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency, contended that the petitioner's claimed experience in hill side cutting work was of insufficient value as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) Clause 19, and that the nominated technical person's advanced age (over 79 years) raised concerns about his ability to perform duties in a high-altitude area.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's technical bid was wrongly declared non-responsive due to insufficient experience in hill side cutting work, contrary to Clause 19 of the NIT? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that his experience as a sub-contractor in hill side cutting work for M/s Ganga Prasad Punetha should have been considered, and that the value of this work was wrongly overlooked. - Respondent's argument: The respondents argued that the value of the hill side cutting work claimed by the petitioner was significantly less than the required amount (1/3rd of ₹96,12,788, which is ₹32,04,262.67), citing a communication indicating the work's value was only ₹12,23,800. 2. Whether the petitioner's technical bid was wrongly declared non-responsive due to the age and alleged suspicious details of the nominated technical person, contrary to the NIT requirements? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the nomination of an elderly technical person should not have led to disqualification without an opportunity to replace him. - Respondent's argument: The respondents contended that the nominated technical person's age (over 79 years) made him unsuitable for performing duties in a high-altitude area, and that the provided details were suspicious and non-verifiable.