Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Suraj Enterprises, a proprietary firm, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7th February 2023 passed by the Nashik Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.1) which declared Respondent No.2, M/s. S and R Pest Control Services, as qualified in the technical bid for Tender No.2. The tender was for daily spraying and fogging activity for control of Vector Borne Diseases under the Urban Malaria Scheme. The petitioner contended that Respondent No.2 had submitted a certificate from a Chartered Accountant certifying a total turnover of more than Rs.4.50 Crores in the last three years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21) for spraying and fogging work, but upon inquiry it was revealed that Respondent No.2 had not actually carried out such work worth that amount. Additionally, Respondent No.2 failed to disclose pending criminal proceedings against it in the tender documents. The court examined the submissions and found that the certificate submitted by Respondent No.2 was incorrect and that the non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings was a material omission. The court held that the order declaring Respondent No.2 qualified in the technical bid was vitiated and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order to the extent it held Respondent No.2 qualified, and directed Respondent No.1 to issue a fresh tender for the works.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - Challenge to tender evaluation order - Court examined whether the order declaring Respondent No.2 qualified in technical bid was vitiated by non-disclosure of material facts and incorrect certificate - Held that the order is liable to be quashed as Respondent No.2 failed to disclose pending criminal proceedings and submitted an incorrect turnover certificate (Paras 2-43). B) Contract Law - Tender Process - Technical Bid Evaluation - Requirement of Turnover Certificate - Respondent No.2 submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate showing turnover of Rs.4.50 Crores for spraying and fogging work, but on inquiry it was revealed that the certificate was incorrect - Held that the certificate was not genuine and the evaluation was flawed (Paras 4-10). C) Criminal Law - Disclosure Obligations - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Respondent No.2 did not disclose pending criminal cases in the tender documents - Held that non-disclosure of material information regarding pending criminal proceedings is a ground to disqualify the bidder (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 7th February 2023 holding Respondent No.2 as qualified in the technical bid for Tender No.2 is liable to be quashed on the ground that Respondent No.2 had submitted an incorrect turnover certificate and failed to disclose pending criminal proceedings.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 7th February 2023 to the extent it holds Respondent No.2 as qualified in the technical bid is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a fresh tender for the works.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari
- Tender evaluation
- Technical bid qualification
- Non-disclosure of material information
- Chartered Accountant certificate
- Turnover certification
- Criminal proceedings disclosure
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
