2023 (8) TMI 1607 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking a direction to respondent No. 5 i.e. the Tender Evaluation Committee through its Chairman Additional District Magistrate Bageshwar to include the petitioner in the financial bid opening process and to treat his e-challan fee as submitted within the stipulated time - case of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not deposit the said amount through e-treasury challan since the portal of the respondents was under maintenance and non-functional from 15.07.2023 05 00 P.M. till 18.07.2023 10 00 A.M. - HELD THAT - It is found that the action of the respondents to be most unreasonable and unfair since admittedly their portal was not working from 15.07.2023 onwards and till 18.07.2023. It would have been only fair for the respondents to extend the time for submitting the e-tenders with the e-challans till after the portal became operational. A bidder like the petitioner who attempted to deposit the money through the e-challan but could not do so on account of the portal not working could not be put to disadvantage particularly when the petitioner had made his representation on 17.07.2023 itself. Clearly the petitioner has been wronged in the matter. However considering the fact that the contract already stands awarded and the contractor is performing the contract at this stage it is not inclined to interfere with the award of the contract. Conclusion - The respondents should have extended the submission deadline. However given the contract s current execution the court chose not to interfere with the award but left the petitioner the option to claim damages. Petition disposed off.

Summary

In the case before the Uttarakhand High Court, the petitioner sought a directive for inclusion in the financial bid process after being excluded due to technical issues with the respondent's e-treasury portal. The petitioner was unable to submit the required e-challan fee on time because the portal was non-functional from July 15, 2023, to July 18, 2023. Despite raising the issue on July 17, 2023, the petitioner's bid was not considered technically qualified, and the financial bid was not opened.

The respondents argued that the contract had already been awarded to technically qualified bidders, and work had commenced. The court found the respondents' actions "unreasonable and unfair," acknowledging that the petitioner was disadvantaged due to the portal's malfunction. The court suggested that the respondents should have extended the submission deadline. However, given the contract's current execution, the court chose not to interfere with the award but left the petitioner the option to claim damages. The petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to seek remedies through a competent court. The Interim Relief Application was also disposed of.