M/S Image Filling Station Vs National Highway Logistics Management Limited & Anr.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:32:19

¶22

15011/1/2024-NHLM/efile 1250 in so far as the declaration of the Petitioner’s bid has been declared as Non-responsive.

¶23

B. Direct Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner’s bid dated 03.08.2024 in terms of the Request for Proposal dated 05.06.2024 bearing reference No. NHLML/ WSA/DBOT/WEN/2024 titled as “Development, Operation and Maintenance of Wayside Amenities on different sections of national highway on lease basis”.

¶24

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the communication declaring the petitioner’s bid – which was submitted pursuant to the invitation of Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 05.06.2024 – as nonresponsive. Respondent no.1 (National Highways Logistics Management Limited) had invited bids for Development, Operation and Maintenance of Wayside Amenities on different sections of National Highways on lease basis. The said bids were required to be furnished online.

¶25

The bidding process involved a two-bid system whereby the bidders were required to furnish a pre-qualification technical bid under a separate cover and a financial bid under a separate cover. The technical bids were required to be opened first and evaluated. The financial bid furnished by a tenderer would be considered if the technical bids were found to be responsive. It appears that the petitioner had erroneously uploaded his financial bid under the same cover as the technical bid. Consequently, the petitioner’s financial bid was no longer concealed.

¶26

It is the petitioner’s case that although there may have been an error in the submission of its bid, there was no specific condition which forbade the petitioner from furnishing his financial bid alongwith the technical bid. Additionally, he submitted that the alleged error did not cause prejudice to any person other than the petitioner.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:32:19

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents stoutly contests the submission that there was no prohibition furnishing the financial bid alongwith the technical bid. He has produced the print out of the screen which clearly reflects that the relevant section is under a heading that reads as “Covers Information, No. of Covers – 2” . The same is set out below:-

¶30

Covers Information,	No. of Covers–2
Cover No	Cover Type	Description	Document Type
1	Fee/PreQual/Technical	SCANNED COPY OF TENDER COST	.pdf
		SCANNED COPY OF EMD	.pdf
		SCANNED COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY	.pdf
		TECHNICAL DOCUMENT I	.pdf
		TECHNICAL DOCUMENT II	.pdf
		TECHNICAL DOCUMENT III	.pdf
		TECHNICAL DOCUMENT IV	.pdf
2	Finance	FINANCIAL PROPOSAL	.xls
		APPENDIX	.pdf

¶31

Additionally, he submits that the tender conditions also clearly specify that the bids were to be submitted in two stages.

¶32

There may be merit in the contention that the tenderers were required to furnish their bids under two covers. However, it is also relevant to examine whether furnishing the financial bid under the same cover has caused any prejudice. Prima facie, we find some merit in the contention that no prejudice has been caused to any person other than the petitioner by

¶33

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:32:19

¶34

premature disclosure of the financial bid.

¶35

We note that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the concerned authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his representation. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

¶36

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the financial bids are opened.

¶37

All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶38

The pending application is also disposed of.

¶39

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶40

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶41

JANUARY 20, 2025 Aj

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:32:19

M/S Image Filling Station v. National Highway Logistics Management Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Image Filling Station v. National Highway Logistics Management Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Jamwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kunte and Drabu Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3) & Ors.

Elitecast Media Private Limited Vs Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd.

Grid Solutions Oy (Ltd) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 1(3)(1) & Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sh. Sunil Solanki

Shri Sanjar Fazal Alam and Ors. Vs Union of India

Gitarattan International Business School Under the Aegis of Rohini Educational Society Vs Directorate of Higher Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Om Prakash Lakhina Vs UOI & Ors.

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Janta Party through Its President Vs Election Commission of India

Arti Kapur Vs Sumana Verma & Anr.

Vanshika Buildtech Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-7 & Ors.

Agam Pulp and Paper Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) & Ors.