Department of Land Resources v. Mukesh and Associates

JASMEET SINGH, J

FEBRUARY 12, 2024 / (NG)

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12.02.2024 + O.M.P. (COMM) 591/2020 & I.A. 12163/2020, I.A. 12165/2020 I.A. 24081/2023 DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Jayashree, Adv. versus MUKESH AND ASSOCIATES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S Santanam, Mr. Darsh Bansal, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 10.01.2020 as amended on 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in ARB.P. 174/2018. 2. It is stated by Mr. Gogna, learned CGSC for the petitioner, that the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, as well as Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. He states that the award suffers from both factual and legal errors. 4. As regards factual errors, he submits that the contract entered into between the parties was void ab initio and hence, has no legal validity as the respondent got the same in a contrived manner and did not comply with the legal and statutory requirements. 5. He submits that the respondent never submitted Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") within the prescribed date. 6. It is stated that on 11.01.2014, the petitioner, i.e. Department of Land Resources under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India issued advertisement for Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") from interested/eligible consultants for assignment of "Monitoring and Evaluation task to external agencies" to ensure objectivity, transparency and credibility of Integrated Watershed Management Portal ("IWMP") implemented by it, separately for 5 regions, i.e. East, West, North, South and North-East regions. 7. As per condition 7 of the EoI, the EoI with accompanying information was to be delivered in a written form in a sealed envelope to the mailing address as mentioned therein within three weeks from the publication of EoI. The EoI categorically mentioned that proposals received after due date will not be entertained under any circumstances. 8. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on 11.01.2014 and the three weeks expired on 01.02.1014, but since 01.02.2014 was a Saturday and a non-working day of the Department, the last date for submission was to be treated as 03.02.2014. 9. It is stated that the respondent did not submit its proposal till the last date, i.e. 03.02.2014 in the written form and in a sealed envelope as mandated under the EoI advertisement. 10. On 06.02.2014, when the proposals received were arranged, it was found that the proposal of the respondent was not there. 11. On 10.02.2014, it was decided by Under Secretary level Officer (after discussion with Economic Advisor) that the proposals received by any means would be considered. 12. On 26.05.2014, the petitioner issued corrigendum to EoI making further changes to the evaluation criteria without the approval of the Competent Authority. It is stated that the same was neither published nor uploaded on the website. 13. On 27.05.2014, the EoI proposals were evaluated and shortlisting of agencies was done. It was indicated that 24 proposals had been received against EoI (including proposals not received in sealed envelope and in a written form). 14. On 18.09.2014, the Department issued Request For Proposal (RFP) from the shortlisted agencies for submission of technical and financial proposals. It is alleged that the RFP again was not approved by the Competent Authority. 15. On 01.10.2014, pre-proposal meeting was held with the bidders. 16. On 02.10.2014, corrigendum to the RFP was issued in accordance with the discussions held in pre-proposal meeting without the approval of the Competent Authority. It is also stated that the criteria of technical evaluation w