WRIC/11480/2024 of NALANDA ENGICON PRIVATE LTD. PATNA THRU. ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. HOUSING URBAN PLANNING GOVT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 31 December 2024

1. Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for oppositeparty no.1 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel foropposite party nos.2 to 4.

2. This matter has been taken up during winter vacationsunder the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on accountof urgency shown by the petitioner.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought awrit of certiorari for quashing the decision dated27.12.2024 by which its reply to the objections raised byopposite party no.4 for rejecting the technical bid of thepetitioner has been decided and rejected. Consequentialrelief of being allowed to participate in the financial bidhas also been sought.

4. After hearing the parties what comes out is that tworeasons have been given for rejection of technical bid,firstly, that the solvency certificate from the DistrictMagistrate as was required in terms of the tenderdocuments was not furnished. Secondly, as against therequirement of similar completed works costing not lessthan the amount equal to 50 per cent of the estimatedcost which was an alternative to other two options in thisregard, it has been mentioned that the percentage of suchsimilar work in the petitioner's completed work is verysmall, meaning thereby, the petitioner does not haveadequate experience of similar works as per therequirements of tender document and the needs ofopposite parties who have issued the tender document.

5. With regard to the first contention, Sri R.D. Shahi,learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatregistered office of the petitioner is at Patna in Bihar andthere is no such provision in the said State for issuance ofsolvency certificate by the District Magistrate insteadsolvency certificate from the Bank where the petitionerhas an account has been submitted. Sri RatneshChandra, learned counsel for the contesting oppositeparties submits that this does not satisfy the terms andconditions of the tender document. It is also hissubmission that the petitioner, if aggrieved, should havechallenged the tender condition at the appropriate stage.Not having done so and having accepted the same andparticipated in the tender process, now he cannot raisethis contention.

6. As regards the second ground, Sri R.D Shahi, learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits that the cost of the workcompleted by the petitioner of a similar nature is Rs.178.91 crore which is more than the required amount ofRs.17834.14 lakhs. As regards similarity of the work, hesays that it is also factually incorrect. Per contra, ShriRatnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the contestingopposite parties invites our attention to the representationsubmitted by the petitioner which has been rejected tosubmit that the second ground asserted by the oppositeparties has not been denied i.e. it has not been deniedthat the quantum of similar work claimed by the petitioneris of a small percentage and does not meet therequirements of the opposite parties. He further submittedthat certain documents which have not been annexedaccording to which the Earthwork, P.C.C and R.C.C workdone by the petitioner which he claims to be of a similarnature amounts to only 49% of the total work required tobe done in pursuance of the tender process which doesnot satisfy the requirements of the opposite parties.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties andhaving perused the records, we find merit in thesubmission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel foropposite party nos.2 to 4. If the petitioner was aggrievedwith the conditions requiring solvency certificate from theDistrict Magistrate, it should have challenged the same atthe appropriate stage. Having participated in the tenderprocess, now, it is too late in the day to challenge thesame i.e. after the rejection of its technical bid. As regardsthe second ground for rejection of technical bid, we findthat it is sufficient to reject the technical bid of thepetitioner as it is ultimately the satisfaction of the opposite parties and there was a clear stipulation regarding thesimilar completed work required to have been done by thepetitioner in the tender document.

8. Looking into the scope of interference in such matters,we do not find it a fit case for grant of the reliefs prayedfor. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 31.12.2024Shanu/-