2023 (5) TMI 1233 - HC - Indian Laws

Auction - rejection of bid - Disqualification of petitioner to participate in the tender/auction process - seeking to issue direction to opposite party no.4 to treat the bid of the petitioner as valid and reconsider the entire tender process from the stage of considering the technical bid afresh and award the tender in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period. HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the petitioner had submitted his bid quoting higher price of Rs.685/-and also furnished a letter of the bank without incorporating the bank guarantee as required under Rule-27(4)(iv) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. Once the bid submitted by the petitioner was not incorporated by the bank guarantee or the previous year s income tax return, it was defective one and cannot be entertained as per the tender notice. It was also clarified in the tender notice that in absence of any documents, as enumerated in clause-1 to 14, the application submitted by the bidder would not be taken into consideration. Therefore, fully knowing the conditions stipulated in the tender notice, the petitioner should not have filed this writ petition claiming consideration of his bid on the ground that he had quoted higher price than opposite party no.5. In TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS VERSUS K. JOTHEESWARA PILLAI (D) BY LRS OTHERS 2007 (5) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT , the apex Court held that the principle on which the writ of mandamus can be issued are well settled and referring to BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS SIPAHI SINGH 1977 (9) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT , the apex Court observed that The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. In view of the ratio decided in aforementioned judgment, it is made clear that writ of mandamus can be issued where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the authorities to do something and for that it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance - As such, the same is absolutely absent in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner having not submitted his bid along with bank guarantee, as required in terms of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and he has not discharged his duty in terms of Rule-27(4)(iv) of OMMC Rules, 2016 read with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. If the tender notice specifies certain conditions and the same have not been adhered to, the bid submitted by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Jamda is well justified in rejecting the bid of the petitioner, which has been confirmed by the Sub-Collector, Bamanghaty, Rairangpur in appeal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the petitioner's bid disqualification.
2. Compliance with tender conditions and submission of bank guarantee.
3. Allegations of manipulation in the bid of opposite party no.5.
4. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the parties.

Summary:

1. Validity of the petitioner's bid disqualification:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 15.10.2022, which upheld the Tahasildar's decision to disqualify the petitioner from the tender process for not including a bank guarantee in the bid. The petitioner argued that the bank guarantee was provided on time but was not accepted by the Tahasildar, who instead declared opposite party no.5 as the highest bidder despite the petitioner's higher bid.

2. Compliance with tender conditions and submission of bank guarantee:
The tender notice required submission of a bank guarantee or previous year's income tax return at the time of bid submission. The petitioner failed to provide a valid bank guarantee within the stipulated time, submitting only a letter from the bank without essential details. The court emphasized that non-compliance with these essential conditions rendered the petitioner's bid void ab initio and justified its rejection by the Tahasildar, which was confirmed by the Sub-Collector.

3. Allegations of manipulation in the bid of opposite party no.5:
The petitioner alleged manipulation in the bid of opposite party no.5, where the additional charge was initially quoted as Rs.150/- and later corrected to Rs.565/-. The court found no evidence of fraud or manipulation, noting that the corrections were signed by opposite party no.5, and thus, the bid was valid.

4. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the parties:
The court referred to several legal precedents to support its decision. It noted that essential tender conditions must be strictly complied with, as established in cases like *Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala* and *Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private Limited*. The court also distinguished the present case from *Swapna Behera v. State of Odisha*, where the facts were materially different.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decisions of the Tahasildar and Sub-Collector to reject the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with the tender conditions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified conditions in the tender notice to maintain the integrity of the tender process.