Dismissed

M/s G. T Enterprises v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2023WP(C)/111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the rejection of a bidder's proposal for a day care construction project. The High Court held that the bid was correctly rejected as the petitioner submitted scanned copies of mandatory Bank and Solvency certificates in lieu of the required originals, violating tender terms.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any interference with the impugned order rejecting the bid.

M/s G. T Enterprises Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040002922023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 111/2023

¶5

1:M/s G. T Enterprises

¶6

Represented by its Proprietor Tajing Tatak, having its registered office at Village Pessing, PO and PS Jomlo Mobuk, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP and 6 Ors,

¶9

Represented by Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶10

2:The Commissioner (Public Work Department) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar

¶11

3:The Chief Engineer Officer Central Zone B Public Work Department Pasighat Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶12

4:The Superintending Engineer Public Work Department Boleng Circle Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶13

5:The Executive Engineer Rumgong Division Public Work Department

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶16

6:The Tender Scrutiny Board Headed by its Chairman the Superintending Engineer Public Work Department Boleng Circle Camp Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶17

7:M/s Rokom Siang Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Shri Taja Tatin

¶18

having its registered office at Village Lorging PO Pessing PS Rumgong Siang District Arunachal Pradesh

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : T Tayeng

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP)

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 03-03-2023

¶25

Heard Mr. T. Tayeng, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶26

The order put to challenge is dated 04.02.2023, issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, vide No. RUM/NIT/NHM/2022-23/825-827, whereby, the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to NIT, dated 11.11.2022, issued by the Executive

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, vide NIT No. RUM/Works/NHM/NIT/202223, for “Construction of 6 (six) bedded Day Care at PHC, Pessing, Siang District”, has been rejected for non-submission of original Bank Certificate and Solvency Certificate as per Clause nos. 7 & 23 of Special Conditions, Rules and Amendments of Contract in the SBD.

¶29

Under Special Conditions, Rules and Amendments of Contract for the NIT issued under Clause nos. 7 & 23, thereof, the bidders are required to submit Bank Certificate of 25% of tendered value in the official letter pad of the issuing bank and solvency certificate in original amounting to 50% of the tendered amount along with the bid.

¶30

The procedure under e-tendering-instructions to bidders for the NIT, dated 11.11.2022, also provides under Clause-2 (iii) that bank certificates as specified in the bid documents along with other documents that are required to be submitted have to be submitted in original before opening of the technical bid to the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that Bank Certificate and Solvency Certificate in original was submitted during the opening of the technical bid on 05.12.2022.

¶32

Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate on the basis of the record received, submits that though the petitioner had submitted hard-copy of the bid along with the documents appended, thereto on 05.12.2022, but all the documents submitted by the petitioner including solvency certificate and bank certificate were not in original and the same were submitted in scanned format.

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

The record received from the Department has also been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tayeng, who, on perusal of the records, is also in agreement that the solvency certificate and the bank certificate submitted by the petitioner are not in original.

¶35

In view of the above, since the petitioner has failed to submit its bid as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, dated 11.11.2022, issued by the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, vide NIT No. RUM/Works/NHM/NIT/2022-23, no interference is called for to the impugned letter, dated 04.02.2023, issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, vide No. RUM/NIT/NHM/2022-23/825-827.

¶36

The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

M/s G. T Enterprises v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s G. T Enterprises v. the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

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

Neelam Richo and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Shri Obit Dai Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

Mejo Sangbia and 113 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Lalit Kumar Singh Vs Deepak Kumar Gupta

Tai Talley Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

Rimmar Taso Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.