Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:86567-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11480 of 2024
Petitioner :- Nalanda Engicon Private Ltd. Patna Thru. Its
Authorized Signatory Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.
Deptt. Housing Urban Planning Govt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Shahi,Ripu
Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for opposite
party no.1 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for
opposite party nos.2 to 4.
2. This matter has been taken up during winter vacations
under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on account
of urgency shown by the petitioner.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought a
writ of certiorari for quashing the decision dated
27.12.2024 by which its reply to the objections raised by
opposite party no.4 for rejecting the technical bid of the
petitioner has been decided and rejected. Consequential
relief of being allowed to participate in the financial bid
has also been sought.
4. After hearing the parties what comes out is that two
reasons have been given for rejection of technical bid,
firstly, that the solvency certificate from the District
Magistrate as was required in terms of the tender
documents was not furnished. Secondly, as against the
requirement of similar completed works costing not less
than the amount equal to 50 per cent of the estimated
cost which was an alternative to other two options in this
regard, it has been mentioned that the percentage of such
similar work in the petitioner's completed work is very
small, meaning thereby, the petitioner does not have
adequate experience of similar works as per the
requirements of tender document and the needs of
opposite parties who have issued the tender document.
5. With regard to the first contention, Sri R.D. Shahi,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
registered office of the petitioner is at Patna in Bihar and
there is no such provision in the said State for issuance of
solvency certificate by the District Magistrate instead
solvency certificate from the Bank where the petitioner
has an account has been submitted. Sri Ratnesh
Chandra, learned counsel for the contesting opposite
parties submits that this does not satisfy the terms and
conditions of the tender document. It is also his
submission that the petitioner, if aggrieved, should have
challenged the tender condition at the appropriate stage.
Not having done so and having accepted the same and
participated in the tender process, now he cannot raise
this contention.
6. As regards the second ground, Sri R.D Shahi, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the cost of the work
completed by the petitioner of a similar nature is Rs.
178.91 crore which is more than the required amount of
Rs.17834.14 lakhs. As regards similarity of the work, he
says that it is also factually incorrect. Per contra, Shri
Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the contesting
opposite parties invites our attention to the representation
submitted by the petitioner which has been rejected to
submit that the second ground asserted by the opposite
parties has not been denied i.e. it has not been denied
that the quantum of similar work claimed by the petitioner
is of a small percentage and does not meet the
requirements of the opposite parties. He further submitted
that certain documents which have not been annexed
according to which the Earthwork, P.C.C and R.C.C work
done by the petitioner which he claims to be of a similar
nature amounts to only 49% of the total work required to
be done in pursuance of the tender process which does
not satisfy the requirements of the opposite parties.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the records, we find merit in the
submission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for
opposite party nos.2 to 4. If the petitioner was aggrieved
with the conditions requiring solvency certificate from the
District Magistrate, it should have challenged the same at
the appropriate stage. Having participated in the tender
process, now, it is too late in the day to challenge the
same i.e. after the rejection of its technical bid. As regards
the second ground for rejection of technical bid, we find
that it is sufficient to reject the technical bid of the
petitioner as it is ultimately the satisfaction of the opposite
parties and there was a clear stipulation regarding the
similar completed work required to have been done by the
petitioner in the tender document.
8. Looking into the scope of interference in such matters,
we do not find it a fit case for grant of the reliefs prayed
for. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 31.12.2024
Shanu/-
Digitally signed by :-
SHANU SUMAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench