Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9403/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9403 of 2011
=========================================================
REX
POLYEXTRUSION LIMITED & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHARAT
SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
SINGHI&CO
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 29/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Ms.Amrita Thakor for Singhi & Company for the petitioners and
Ms.Davavala learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for
the respondents has also produced the records.
2. The
tenders were invited by the respondents for supply of MP/HDPE (DWC)
PIPE/10-11/07 along with DWC HDPE Ducts. The bids was by two bid
system. Technical bid and Price bid were required to be submitted by
the tenderer. If the a tenderer qualified in the technical bid then
only the price bid was to be required to be considered. The
petitioner submitted his tender along with relevant documents. By
letter dated 16.05.2011 and the same papers were demanded again from
the petitioner in view of Clause-20 of the tender documents which was
supplied by the petitioners. This petition has been filed by the
petitioners on the ground that there were three bidders and bid was
to be distributed amongst three bidders for package one.
3. Only
three tenderer have participated and submitted the technical bid and
the petitioner and one another tenderer, bid was not accepted in the
technical bid. The technical bid of respondent no.4 was accepted.
Only respondent no.4 was considered in the price bid.
4. Ms.Davavala,
learned counsel has urged that the petitioner’s technical bid had not
been accepted on the ground that the petitioners did not submit the
certificate from all the Directors of the company with proper
signature as provided in the certificate performa.
5. From
the original record, it is found that all the Directors of the
petitioner company have given the certificate that none of their
relatives were working in BSNL. The objection of the learned counsel
for the respondents that the performa could not be changed and once
“I” was written every Director was required to be submit a
separate certificate cannot be accepted as “We” was written
and all the Directors have signed on the next page of the
certificate. The certificate was a valid certificate.
6. The
other objection of the learned counsel for the respondents was that
the registration certificate from the State Director of Industries
was not certified. From the original tender documents, we find that
the petitioners have submitted the certificate from the District
Industries Center, Sangli, Director of Industries, Government of
Maharashtra and which was also certified by the Special Executive
Magistrate therefore, this document was liable to be accepted by the
respondents. Under mistake the respondents have not accepted though
they have accepted the certificate of the respondent no.4 which was
only self-attested and notarized but it was not certified. From the
tender condition of the tender document, we do not find that
self-attested or notarized certificate was acceptable. However, since
the respondents are ready to accept the petitioners’ tender and his
technical bid and ready to open the petitioners’ price bid,
therefore, we do not declare invalid the tender of respondent no.4 on
technical ground.
7. For
the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents not to reject the technical bid of the
petitioner and after accepting his technical bid consider his price
bid along with price bid of respondent no.4. The respondents shall
also inform the date to the petitioners on which the price bid of the
petitioner would be opened. Entire exercise should be completed by
the respondents prior to the finalization of the contract in favour
of tenderer.
(V.M.
Sahai, J.)
(G.B.
Shah, J.)
koshti/
Top