Ncc Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29072 of 2019

Petitioner :- Ncc Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Harkauli Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad,Ravi Anand Agarwal

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Anup Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee whereby in the technical bid opened by the Committee after due evaluation, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. This Court taking judicial notice of the order of the impugned action of the respondents had passed a detailed order dated 16.9.2019 which is reproduced hereunder:

"Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi , learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel.

The contention advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2019, rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, no proper technical assesment has taken place as per the instructions 32.2, 32.3 read with 32.4 of Section 1 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and he submits that the petitioner's having submitted details of litigation that were in fact instituted at the instance of the petitioner except the one in which there was a counter claim at item no. 9 of the list, if the Technical Evaluation Committee had rendered its due application of mind, it would not have found the technical bid to be substantially non responsive to non-suit the petitioner. He submits that if the arbitration proceedings instituted at the instance of the firm are for realization of money then in such circumstances such litigation cannot be taken to be slashing net worth of the company. He argues that it is a claim against the company that creates charge upon the assets if such claim is allowed but it is not the case in hand.