The letter of allotment of contract issued under No. SEHU/2073-77 dated 21- 08-2014 about the construction of flood protection work on both sides of Jageer Narh Nallah was challenged by the petitioner, and the same was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising The Hon’ble Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in the matter Mohd Shafi v/s State of J&K and others [OWP No. 1582 of 2014].
letter of allotment of contract No. SEHU/2073-77 dated 21- 08-2014 was issued in favour of respondent No. 5 and order/letter of allotment of contract issued under No. MIDD/1865-68 dated 13-08-2014 about work of the Construction of Flood Protection on Left Side of Osha Nallah (Panchayat Dewal Doga) with the estimated cost/amount of work as per NIT Rs.17.67 lacs, issued in favour of respondent No. 6.
They also mentioned that the estimated cost of the work was provided as Rs. 26.39 lacs and the earnest money that was required to be deposited was Rs. 52,800/-, the petitioner, being eligible to execute the above-mentioned works, responded to the aforementioned notices and disclosed whole of the details to the respondents. The petitioner has placed on record the Bid Submission Confirmation concerning both the tenders mentioned above downloaded from the site. Later it was opened without the knowledge of the petitioner.
According to the directions of the Court, the comparative statements were furnished to the petitioner by the respondents along with letter/communication, A perusal of the comparative statements further revealed that the respondents have concluded that the lowest amount quoted by the petitioner had been rejected for not depositing 5% extra CDR/FDR for quoting the rates below 5% as per e-NITs conditions.
A perusal of the comparative statements further revealed that the respondents have concluded that the lowest amount quoted by the petitioner had been rejected for not depositing 5% extra CDR/FDR for quoting the rates below 5% as per e-NITs conditions.
It was further stated that the requirement of clause 10(b) incorporated in 4 OWP No. 1582 of 2014 the alleged Important Instructions For Bidders should have been included in the e-NITs directly and that the said instructions have not been signed by any authority or functionary of the Government.
Also, the court directed the respondents to produce the record of both the tenders available online and the same was produced by the respondents to do so at the course of hearing,
Mr C. M. Koul, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Important Instructions for Bidders based on which bids of the petitioner have been rejected did not form part and parcel of the e-NITs, Later Mr Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG appearing for the respondents submitted that in the e-NITs, Tender documents and follow among others, the instructions to the bidders before the process of casting the tenders. He also submitted that these Important Instructions for Bidders were available online now and they still are available online.
The Hon’ble High Court perused the facts and the arguments presented, and thereby, opined that –“ “The petitioner contends that the said Instructions were not available online at the time of casting of bids. The petitioner cannot claim that the important instructions for bidders were not available online, so he was not aware of the same because of the simple reason that a specific reference to the instructions to bidders has been made in both the e-NITs and further once the 6 OWP No. 1582 of 2014 same were not available online at that point of time, he should have brought it to the notice of the official respondents and not having done so, the petitioner cannot raise the said issue now when the works have been allotted to the private respondents. 17. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed”.
Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS