This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a tenderer who claims low bid status but was disqualified for failing to submit an Authorization Certificate. The court refused to interfere, noting the contract was completed and the appeal filed after one year.
The writ petition is dismissed as it has failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPMS No. 2398 of 2020 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
Respondent no. 1 had invited tenders, through online process, for supply of equipments with regard to Disaster Management, through tender notice dated 17.07.2019.
According to the petitioner, his bid was the lowest; yet, he was not awarded the contract.
The work of supply of different items, pursuant to the said tender notice, is complete. Now, after one year, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:
“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 to conduct a high level inquiry against the respondent no. 4 for committing illegalities while accepting the tender in favour of M/s Defence Equippers for the supply of Pelican Light, by cancelling the tender of the petitioner which was issued in pursuance to the tender notice dated 17-07-2019 for the supply of Pelican Light.”
Learned Additional C.S.C. refers to one letter dated 08.08.2019 issued by District Magistrate, Dehradun. By the said letter, petitioner was informed that, except the petitioner, all other bidders have submitted the Authorization Certificate issued by the manufacturer of the Pelican Light and, by the said letter, petitioner was asked to submit the Authorization Certificate, through e-mail, within 24 hours. Since petitioner did not
furnish the Authorization Certificate in terms of the said letter, therefore, he was disqualified.
Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Competent Authority not to grant the contract to the petitioner on various grounds, however, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The contract was awarded in the year 2019 and supply of various items has also been completed.
In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Arpan
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 14.12.2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere in a matter where the petitioner, despite being the lowest bidder, was disqualified for not submitting an Authorization Certificate within the stipulated time.
Whether a high-level inquiry should be directed against officials for accepting a tender in favour of another bidder over the lowest bidder.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed given the substantial delay of one year in filing it after the completion of supply.
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent no. 1
M/s Defence Equippers
Manoj K. Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
