H.N. Singh and Company Vs Hpsidcl and Others

For the petitioner :	Mr. Aman Karanveer	Bahri and Bawa Singh, Advocates.
For the respondents :	Mr. Vedhan respondents	t Ranta, Advocate, for No. 1 to 4.
:	Mr. Sumeet for responde	Raj Sharma, Advocate, nt No. 5.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶13

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:

¶14

i) That a Writ in the nature of Mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2

¶17

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶18

respondent No. 1 to 4 to open the financial bid in respect of job No.1, Tender I/d 2023-SIDC81465-1, dated 16.11.2023 may immediately.

¶19

ii) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may further be restrained from scraping tender ID: 2023-SIDC-81465-1 dated 16.11.2023 as it would be a burden on the state exchequer, as the petitioner apprehends that the respondent No.4 by using his power deliberately scrap the same as the tender documents provides for acceptance of tender within 120 days and the said period expires on 27.03.2024.

¶20

A Notice Inviting Tender (for short “NIT”) was

¶21

published by respondent No.3 for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 15.11.2023. Online bids through e-Tendering System were invited from eligible and approved contractors for the work “Development of Medical Device Park at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (SH: Providing Water Supply by Drilling 5 Nos. Bore Wells, Ground Water Storage Tanks ( 5 Lakhs Ltr. Capacity 1 No. and 2 Lakhs Ltr. Capacity 2 Nos.), Over Head Water Storage Tank 2 Nos. (10 Lakhs Capacity each), providing/Laying Rising Main and Distribution Line . The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 6,24,60,064/-. The stipulated period for completion of work was twelve months.

¶22

In response to above NIT, six contractors including petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted their respective bids. The bids were to be opened in two parts i.e. technical bid and

¶23

3

¶24

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶25

financial bid. The bids submitted by petitioner and two others, namely, Kashmiri Lal Construction Private Ltd. and R.G. Industries, were found responsive on technical evaluation, whereas

¶26

other remaining three bids including that of respondent No. 5 were found non-responsive.

¶27

The bid of respondent No. 5 was held non-responsive

¶28

by quoting following reasons:-

¶29

“ Vehicle Fitted Drilling Rigs document submitted but Rotary Rig not mentioned in the registration certificate issued by RLA under Motor Vehicles Act.”

¶30

The status of the technical evaluation was published on the website of respondent No. 1, on 21.02.2024. The bid of respondent No. 5, having been declared non-responsive, the said respondent submitted a representation dated 22.2.2024 to the official respondents raising objection as to rejection of his technical bid.

¶31

Respondent No. 5 submitted that the equipments intended to be used by him qualified the technical specification as specified in the NIT and non-mentioning of “Rotary Rig” as class of vehicle in registration certificate issued by RLA was beyond his control.

¶32

4

¶33

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶34

7. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, constituted a committee

¶35

to physically verify the types of equipment intended to be used by bidders.

¶36

The financial bid was to be opened on 22.02.2024, but the same was delayed.

¶37

Petitioner also submitted a representation to respondent No. 1, on 26.02.2024. Petitioner instituted the instant petition on 23.03.2024, under the apprehension, firstly, that the official respondents were trying to permit respondent No. 5 to submit fresh documents and secondly, that the respondents were trying to allow a period of 120 days to elapse, which was the stipulated period under the terms of Tender, during which the works was to remain open for acceptance of Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record available on file.

¶39

Clause-6 of the Technical Qualification Criteria

¶40

prescribed under bid document, reads as under:-

¶41

“6. Machinery/equipments and technical staff:

¶42

The bidder must produce registration certificate of rotary rig in the name of party.

¶43

* In case self owned then affidavit of ownership alongwith registration certificate of vehicle/machineries or relevant documents.

¶44

5

¶45

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶46

* In case of hired or leased then hiring/leasing agreement/affidavit.”

¶47

The above clause was modified by way of

¶48

corrigendum, whereas the original Clause-6 of Technical

¶49

Qualification Criteria, read as under:-

¶50

“6. Machinery/equipments and technical staff:

¶51

The bidder must produce registration certificate of rotary rig in the name of party.

¶52

* In case self owned then affidavit of ownership alongwith registration certificate of vehicle/machineries or relevant documents.”

¶53

The reading of original as also the amended Clause-6

¶54

of Technical Qualification Criteria makes it clear that the requirement for bidders to produce registration certificate of rotary rig remained unchanged. In the original Clause-6 of Technical Qualification Criteria, the provision for use of hired or leased equipment was not there, however, in the amended clause it was provided that in case the contractor was to use hired or leased equipment then hiring/leasing agreement/affidavit was also to be furnished.

¶55

Admittedly, the registration certificate produced by the

¶56

petitioner was of the vehicle fitted with rotary rig.

¶57

6

¶58

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶59

Respondent No. 5 had submitted the registration certificate of vehicle No. HP72-3582, wherein the class of vehicle was mentioned as “ vehicle fitted with rig (HMV)” and model was “vehicle fitted drilling rig”. The vehicle No. HP72-3582 was registered in the name of Sharma Enterprises. Respondent No. 5 had represented to have taken said vehicle on lease/hire from the owner i.e. Sharma Enterprises and had submitted an equipment lease agreement dated 27.11.2023. The technical bid of respondent No. 5 was held non-responsive for want of the provision of rotary rig in the vehicle sought to be used by said respondent.

¶60

Respondents No. 1 to 4, in their reply have not denied the fact that at the time of submission of bid of respondent No.5, the registration certificate was of vehicle No. HP72-3582, registered in the name of Sharma Enterprises and did not bear the endorsement as to vehicle having been fitted with rotary rig. Even respondent No. 5 in its reply has not denied such fact.

¶61

The stand taken by respondent No. 5 is that though the vehicle sought to be used by said respondent was fitted with rotary rig, but it was not so mentioned in the registration certificate issued by RLA. Further, respondent No. 5 has come up with a plea that subsequently the necessary rectification has been got done in the

¶62

7

¶63

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶64

registration certificate of vehicle No. HP72-3582 and the classification fitted with rotary rig has been incorporated.

¶65

It has also appeared from the replies of respondents No. 1 to 4 and 5, respectively, that on the representation of respondent No. 5, dated 22.02.2024, a committee was constituted, which had decided to get vehicles of all the bidders physically verified and on such verification the vehicle No. HP72-3582 was found to be meeting the requirement of Clause-6 of Technical Qualification Criteria,

¶66

On perusal of record, the above contention of respondents has been found to be incorrect. It is clear from the documents placed by respondents No. 1 to 4 ( at pages 208 of paper book) that on 27.02.2024, RTO, Shimla, had requested the RTO, Nahan, to physically verify vehicle bearing registration No. HP723582 to ascertain whether it was fitted with rotary rig or not. In response, dated 01.03.2024, RTO, Nahan, had reported as under:-

¶67

“ With reference to your office mail dated 27.02.2024 regarding subject mentioned above undersigned with Motor Vehicle Inspector Sirmour inspected vehicle bearing registration mark HP72-3582 on 29.02.2024. Detail of inspection is as under:-

¶68

Vehicle Number HP72-3582 Owner Name Sharma Enterprises (agreement with HC Bansal Engineers)

¶69

8

¶70

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶71

Chassis Number CPA074239

¶72

Vehicle Class Vehicle Fitted with rig

¶73

Supporting documents is hereby enclosed for your reference please.”

¶74

Thus, there remains no doubt that at the time of

¶75

submission of bid by respondent No.5, registration certificate of vehicle No. HP72-3582 with endorsement ‘fitted with rig’ only was available.

¶76

It is more than settled that the technical qualification of bidders has to be assessed as per the term of Tender document and the inputs provided by the bidders in response thereto. As noticed above, the objection raised by respondent No. 5 before respondents No. 1 to 4 that the omission to mention rotary rig in the registration certificate could not bar him from further participation in the tender process stands belied from the document finding place at page 208 of the paper book, as discussed above. That being so, the grievance raised by respondent No. 5, with respect to rejection of his technical bid is without any substance.

¶77

The official respondents have also pleaded that they

¶78

are only the executive agency for the work, which as a matter of fact is a joint venture of Government of India and the State Government.

¶79

9

¶80

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶81

As per said respondents, since the funds had not been made available

¶82

for the work in question, the financial bids were not being opened.

¶83

Noticeably, the work in question is part of a bigger project, named, Development of Medical Device Part at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The total cost of said project, as per reply of official respondents, is Rs. 350 crores. The share of contribution of Government of India is stated to be Rs. 99.93 crores and the remaining shares of the State Government is of Rs. 249.83 crores. Respondents No. 1 to 4, have also mentioned that they have already received Rs. 30 crores from the Government of India and Rs. 74.94 crores from the State Government in March, 2022 and the share of State Government had already been completely utilized. Another sum of Rs. 30 crores is stated to have been received from the State Government by respondents No. 1 to 4 in the month of June, 2024. Thus, it is not a case where the project of Development of Medical Device Part at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. has not started at all.

¶84

No doubt, respondents No. 1 to 4 will be able to start the work in question only when the funds are made available, however, the same by itself cannot be held sufficient to justify the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 in not opening the financial bid.

¶85

10

¶86

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶87

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶88

though the petitioner had submitted the bids by quoting the rates almost one year ago, but the petitioner is still ready to accept the work on the same rates, if he is found L-1 . He further submitted that he has instructions to even undertake that the petitioner shall be ready to accept the work on the same rates even for another one year after today.

¶89

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 in response has submitted, on instructions, that his clients have no inhibition in opening the financial bids and to award the work to the petitioner in case he is found L-1 and further to award the work to petitioner on the same rates during a period of another year hereafter, provided the funds are made available to them.

¶90

As already noticed by us that the award of work will definitely be subject to availability of funds with respondents No. 1 to 4, who are nothing more than executive agency for the work.

¶91

In light of above discussion, we allow the writ petition to the extent that respondents No. 1 to 4, are directed to open the financial bids of petitioner and other two bidders, who have qualified technical evaluation, within one week from the date of the production of this order. It is further directed that in case the

¶92

11

¶93

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

¶94

financial bid of petitioner is found to be lowest, in such event, petitioner shall be awarded the work subject to availability of funds and as undertaken by petitioner, it shall be liable to accept the award on the same rates as submitted in the bid during the period of one year commencing from the date of the passing of this order. It is further clarified that in case funds are not provided to respondents No. 1 to 4 within a period of one year, the tender shall stands automatically cancelled and thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 4, shall be at liberty to issue a fresh NIT, in case, so required.

¶95

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, in above

¶96

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶97

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶98

(Satyen Vaidya) 20^th November, 2024 Judge (sushma)

¶99

12

¶100

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11874 )

H.N. Singh and Company v. Hpsidcl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.N. Singh and Company v. Hpsidcl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hrtc and Another Vs Ashwani Kumar

Sudesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Ganga Ram

Kuldeep Singh Rana Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Duni Chand

State of Hp and Another Vs Harinder Singh and another