9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, challenging the decision of the respondent authorities, dated 30.5.2021 (Annexure P-9), whereby her technical bid was rejected and respondent No.2 was found to be technically compliant. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition, are that vide E-Tender Notice dated 20.3.2021 (Annexure P-1), under two bid system, online bids were invited for allotment of shops at the campus of Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, (IISER). The technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected, for she failed to furnish the GST number, along with her bid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of her technical bid for want of GST number was illegal, for, in fact, the petitioner was/is exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he would accept all the terms and conditions of the tender document and undertook to abide by them. Thus, she cannot now be permitted to object to the condition of furnishing the GST number. It is further submitted that petitioner, in fact, did not submit the GST number with her bid, as is evident from Annexure-II (at page 33 of the paper book), wherein column No. 9 of the tender for shops for rent at IISER Mohali, had been left blank. Whereas, respondent No.2 furnished his GST number (Annexure P-11), along with other necessary documents, including experience certificate. Therefore, the authorities rightly accepted the bid of respondent No.2. Thus, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vident from the information supplied by the petitioner herself in the tender form. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that once the petitioner had accepted all the terms and conditions of the tender and was well aware of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the GST number, now she cannot be permitted to say that she was not required to do so. In such a situation, it can be safely concluded that the authorities have rightly rejected her technical bid, being non-compliant. On the other hand, respondent No.2 had furnished the GST number and was the only tenderer remaining in the fray, and therefore, declared as technically compliant. As regards the issue that petitioner had offered higher rent than respondent No.2, it would also not ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return, respondent No.2 has not been extended any benefit of experience under this clause. But, in fact, he has been allotted tender, for he fulfilled all the mandatory requirements of the tender document, and was the sole tenderer remaining in the fray. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, clarified that though learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the document (at page 63 of the paper book), whereby certain bids were rejected on account of non submission of experience certificate, but the authorities had committed a mistake, which is being re-visited and corrective measures in this regard would be taken, after following principles of natural justice. He further clarifies that the instances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
