(A) That the petitioner was declared “responsive” but was later, held to be “nonresponsive”. This averment made by the petitioner is not correct as in the beginning, when the petitioner uploaded the bid in the Prahari App initially, the bid was “responsive” believing all the documents uploaded by the petitioner to be true. However, as per Clause 3 of NIT, an opportunity was given to all the bidders to raise objections on the bids of their competitors. Objections were raised against the technical bids of the petitioner, after the scrutiny of the objections, the Tender Evaluating Committee found the bid of the petitioner to be “non-responsive” on twelve counts. On the representation of the petitioner, the State Level Committee relegated it back to the District Level Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner on one of the issues. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the District Level Committee found the bid to be “responsive” on one count only, however, on the remaining eleven counts, the bid of the petitioner remained “non-responsive”. It seems that the petitioner in connivance with the Executive Engineer got the “responsive” certificate. On inquiry being made, it was found that the Executive Engineer has unauthorisedly and illegally issued a letter on 15.04.2023. Against this Executive Engineer, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and he was found to be guilty. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fraud which has been perpetuated by the Executive Engineer and of course, for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the bid of the petitioner was rightly declared as “non-responsive” and the allegations of the petitioner that his bid was “responsive”, is not correct. The bid still remained “non-responsive” on eleven counts.
