Disposed

M/S Kshitij Enterprises v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2023WRIC/14799/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in a tender without reasons. The High Court directed the respondent to supply reasons for disqualification within two days, allow the petitioner to object within three days, and decide the objections within four days after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to supply reasons for disqualification within two days, admit objections within three days, and decide them within four days after hearing.

M/S Kshitij Enterprises Vs U.P. Power Transmission… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98531-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14799 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Kshitij Enterprises Respondent :- U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Gautam,Ajit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶7

Technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected by a nonspeaking order dated 19.04.2023 filed as Annexure-40 to the writ petition, in which only it has been mentioned that "technically not qualified". Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions/eligibility for technical bid and, therefore, his bid could not have been rejected.

¶8

In response, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2, states on instructions that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected for the following reasons:-

¶9

i) Condition no. 4.2 (a) of the tender notice, which provides that bidder should have successfully completed satisfactory operation and maintenance of one no. 132KV or above voltage AIS/GIS/Hybrid Sub-stations for minimum duration of two years during the last five years as on the originally scheduled date of bid opening, is not fulfilled by the petitioner.

¶10

ii) The liquid assets of the petitioner is Rs. 52 lakhs which is below the calculated benchmark of Rs. 67 lakhs, as provided in para 4.3.2 of the tender notice.

¶11

Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2, therefore, submits that since the petitioner was not fulfilling the aforesaid two essential conditions; hence, his technical bid has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was fulfilling condition 4.2(a) as well as 4.3.2 of the tender notice. He has also drawn our attention to the certificate of the petitioner's bank i.e. Canara Bank dated 31.03.2023 which certified that liquid assets of the petitioner to be good upto a sum of Rs. 122 lakhs. He also drew our attention to an undated certificate of petitioner's Chartered Accountant, who certified the liquid assets of the petitioner as on 31.03.2022 to be Rs. 108.98 lakh. He further submits that the respondent no.3, to whom the respondents no. 1 and 2 have taken to be technically qualified infact was not qualified as he was having work experience of less than two years and thus, was ineligible under condition no. 4.2(a) of the tender notice.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has submitted an objection dated 24.4.2023 against the order dated 19.04.2023 rejecting his technical bid but the respondents have not decided it for the reason that they are favoring the respondent no.3 and for that reason a totally ineligible bidder i.e. respondent no. 3 has been declared technically qualified.

¶14

Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 states on instructions that the objection of the petitioner shall be decided by the respondent no. 1 within a week.

¶15

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2, as afornoted and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions to respondent no.1-Chairman, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow:-

¶16

i) The respondent no.1 shall supply the reasons to the petitioner for disqualifying the petitioner in technical bid, within two days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

ii) The petitioner may submit his objections within next three days.

¶18

iii) The respondent no. 1 shall decide the objections of the petitioner within next four days in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Kirti

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KIRTI SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Kshitij Enterprises v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kshitij Enterprises v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kaur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dhruv Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mohammad Naushad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Meghnath Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Satya Narain Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others