Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench Delivers Judgment in Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Petitioner's Bid and Cancellation of Work Experience Certificate in Road Improvement Tender. Dispute Involves Technical Eligibility of Petitioner and Respondent No.7 Under Tender Clause 4.4A and Alleged Disruption of Tender Process.

Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of the petitioner's bid, cancellation of a work experience certificate, rejection of petitioner's objection to respondent no.7's eligibility, and seeking a declaration that respondent no.7 is disqualified from participating in a government tender for road improvement work.

Quashing of communications dated 31/8/2019 (rejection of petitioner's offer as L-1), 20/8/2019 (cancellation of work experience certificate issued by MSRDC), and 9/8/2019 (rejection of petitioner's objection to respondent no.7's eligibility); and a declaration that respondent no.7 does not satisfy the technical eligibility criteria of the tender.

Petitioner's bid was initially accepted as L-1 after technical and financial evaluation, but was subsequently rejected; the work experience certificate upon which petitioner relied was cancelled; and respondent no.7, whose bid was over Rs.1 crore higher, was allowed to continue despite alleged ineligibility and disruption of the tender process.

The Tender Evaluation Committee had initially determined the petitioner technically eligible and rejected respondent no.7's objections on 1/8/2019 based on pointwise compliance review. The financial bid of petitioner was opened on 1/8/2019, and respondent no.7's financial bid was opened on 14/8/2019, revealing petitioner as L-1. No prior court decisions are mentioned in the extracted text.

Whether the cancellation of the work experience certificate dated 5/12/2018 issued by MSRDC to the petitioner was valid? Whether the rejection of the petitioner's offer as L-1 by communication dated 31/8/2019 was justified? Whether the rejection of the petitioner's objection to the technical eligibility of respondent no.7 was proper? Whether respondent no.7 satisfied the technical eligibility criteria under the tender? Whether the conduct of respondent no.7's representative in disrupting the tender process affected its eligibility or the validity of the tender process?

Respondent no.7 submitted that the petitioner's work completion time under sub-contract was doubtful and that the petitioner had not attached a work in hand certificate other than the sub-contract certificate. Petitioner submitted that respondent no.7 did not meet the prescribed technical eligibility criteria and its bid should be disqualified. Petitioner also argued that respondent no.7's representative obstructed the tender process by taking away official documents, which ought to disqualify respondent no.7.

By the present petition challenge is raised (a) to the communication dated 31/8/2019 issued by the respondent no.4 (the letter by which, the offer of the petitioner, which was initially accepted as L-1 is rejected -Annexure-12/pg.191); (b) the communication dated 20/8/2019 issued by the respondent no.5 (Annexure – 9/pg. 182), whereby the work experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent no.6 was canceled); (c) the communication dated 9/8/2019 (Annexure -24-A/ pg.361-C & D), whereby the objection of the petitioner dated 8/8/2019, to the eligibility of the respondent no.7 has been rejected and (d) a further declaration has been sought that the respondent no.7 does not satisfy the technical eligibility criteria of the subject tender process and is as such disqualified to participate therein. On 1/8/2019, a meeting was held for opening the price bid in which the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) prepared a comparative sheet of the technical bids submitted by the petitioner and the respondent no.7, whose representatives were present there, who upon being confronted with the comparative sheet and asked whether they had any objections to the technical qualifications of each other, replied in negative and accepted that both of them were technically qualified. Mr. Sumit Bajoriya, the partner of BCCPL, the lead partner of the respondent no.7/J.V., who was present on 1/8/2019, upon the opening of the price bid of the petitioner, whereby the price bid of the petitioner was disclosed, created a ruckus and stated that his objection as to the eligibility of the petitioner continued and insisted for stopping the process of further opening of the price bid of the respondent no.7.

On 29/6/2009 (likely 2019), a NIT was published by respondent no.4 for road improvement work. Petitioner submitted its bid on 11/7/2009 (likely 2019). Technical bids were opened on 20/7/2019; SDPL-SGS (JV) was disqualified. Respondent no.7 raised objections to petitioner's eligibility on 26/7/2017 (likely 2019). On 31/7/2019, respondent no.4 sought verification of petitioner's work experience certificate; respondent no.6 confirmed on 6/8/2019 and 13/8/2019 that the sub-contracted work was 100% complete. The TEC rejected respondent no.7's objections and held petitioner technically eligible. On 1/8/2019, a meeting for price bid opening was held; representatives of both petitioner and respondent no.7 signed acceptance of each other's technical eligibility. Petitioner's price bid was opened. Mr. Sumit Bajoriya of respondent no.7 then created a ruckus, took away the attendance register and tender scrutiny sheet, disrupting the process. The documents were returned by Mr. Gughane at 3:00 p.m. on 2/8/2019. On 8/8/2019, petitioner raised objections to respondent no.7's eligibility, which were rejected on 9/8/2019. On 14/8/2019, respondent no.7's financial bid was opened; its offer was Rs.1,04,00,000/- higher than petitioner's, making petitioner L-1. Subsequently, on 20/8/2019, respondent no.5 cancelled the work experience certificate issued on 5/12/2018. On 31/8/2019, respondent no.4 rejected petitioner's offer. The writ petition was filed challenging these actions. The court heard the matter, rule was made returnable forthwith, and judgment was reserved on 7/10/2020 and pronounced on 28/10/2020.

• Companies Act: