Om Prakash Arya v. Food Corporation of India Through Its General Manager

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1.    The  petitioner  assails  the  technical  evaluation  summary  dated

27.08.2024  (Annexure  P-5)  vide  which  the  technical  bid  submitted  by  the petitioner for being appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for Center Gohana,  Rail  Head,  Gohana  was  rejected  and  the  order  dated  10.09.2024 (Annexure  P-8)  vide  which  representation  dated  31.08.2024  (Annexure  P-6) moved  by  the  petitioner  in  compliance  with  the  order  dated  03.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by this Court in CWP No.21995 of 2024 titled as 'Om Prakash Arya Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another'  was rejected and the order dated 27.08.2024 was upheld.

2.    A  Notice  Inviting  Tender  (NIT)  dated  19.06.2024  (Annexure  P-1) was issued by the Food Corporation of India (respondent No.1) for appointing of Handling and Transport Contractor (HTC) at Center Gohana under the two bid system from financially sound parties having requisite business competence. The terms and conditions of the NIT were to be read with the Model Tender Form

(MTF) (Annexure P-2).

3.    The petitioner submitted its bid on 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) and the technical evaluation report dated 27.08.2024 was mailed to the petitioner vide which the petitioner was declared to be technically non-responsive. As per the petitioner, the e-mail was perused by the petitioner on 30.08.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been erroneously held to be technically non-responsive and that the bid was rejected in a Hyper-Technical Manner stating that the bank statement of last one year for the period ending on the date of publication of the NIT had not been submitted. It is the case of the petitioner that the bank statement  was  to  be  submitted  from  20.06.2023  to  19.06.2024  for  the  limited purpose of KYC but the petitioner had submitted the statement from 03.07.2023 to

10.07.2024 which fell short by 13 days.

4.    Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order,  the  petitioner  instituted CWP No.21995 of 2024 titled as 'Om Prakash Arya Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another' which  was  disposed  of  vide  order  dated  03.09.2024  (Annexure  P-7)  with  a direction to the respondents to consider the concerns/grievances of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5.    In  compliance  with  the  aforesaid  order,  representation  dated

31.08.2024 was submitted by the petitioner which has now been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-8). It is the case of the petitioner that the rejection is beyond the relevant terms and conditions as stated in the NIT and the MTF floated by the Corporation without considering the fact that the petitioner had complied with each and every requirement. It is also the case of the petitioner ththat the rate quoted by the petitioner is 1/6  of the rate quoted by respondent No.3 who  has  been  awarded  the  work  vide  allotment  letter  dated  12.09.2024

(Annexure P-9). It has, therefore, been averred that if the petitioner is held to be technically  responsive  and  work  is  allotted  to  it,  the  same  shall  benefit  the Corporation as also the State Exchequer. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially the tender in respect of the Gohana Center was floated on 24.01.2024 wherein  a  similar  anomaly  by  one  Noratan  who  was  one  of  the  bidders  was overlooked and he was declared to be technically responsive. However, at a later stage the said tender was scrapped. Another example of one Deepu Verma who had submitted his bid in pursuance to another tender floated on 18.03.2024 with regard to the same center has been given. It has been averred that he was declared technically responsive despite his bank statement being short by few days but the said tender was also subsequently scrapped after which the present tender inquiry was floated.

6.    We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

7.    Mr.  Gaurav  Chopra,  learned  Senior  counsel  representing  the petitioner has strenuously urged that the holding of the petitioner to be technically non-responsive and the subsequent speaking order dated 10.09.2024 is illegal and arbitrary.  Learned  Senior  counsel  submits  that  the  bank  statement  had  to  be submitted only for the purpose of KYC and that in any case, the same was short by only 13 days. Learned Senior counsel also points out about the previous two instances  wherein  similar  discrepancies were  overlooked  and  the bidders  were held  to  be  technically  responsive.  Learned  Senior  counsel  submits  that  the speaking order does not deal with the issue at all and the concerned authority has again in fact passed a non-speaking order.

8.    Having heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

0.    4nitiall", on #$.%&.#%#', the petitioner was held to -e technicall" non* responsive holding as under:* 8Te +#! a9 B!0 "/:(!tteti :, t+e :!00e) !" #ot !# a o)0a# e ;!t+ t+e  )!te)!a 9a!0 0o;# !# NIT<2TF& B!00e) +a" #ot "/:(!tteti :a#* "tate(e#t of 9a"t o#e ,ea) fo) t+e 1e)!oti e#0!#= o# t+e 0ate of 1/:9! at!o# of NIT !#  a"e of #o#-a""e""e a" )e>/!)eti /#0e)  9a/"e %?:@?!A@&  He# e  :!00e)  te +#! a99,  0!">/a9!f!eti  a"  !#  eB1e)!e# e :!00e)&C

%.    !he  petitioner  then  filed  CWP  No.21995  of  2024  titled  as  'Om Prakash Arya Vs. Food Corporation of  ndia and Anoth!r"  -efore this Court which was disposed of on %1.%0.#%#':* "Vide Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), dated June 19, 2024 (P-1), the respondent-Corporation had invited e-tenders for appointment of regular contractor for handling and transport of foodgrains and allied material etc. at Centre Gohana, for a period of two years. Concededly, the petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted his bid. However, upon technical evaluation of his bid, the authorities, vide order dated August 27, 2024 (P-5), declared him noncompliant/non-responsive, as he failed to submit the bank account statement of the last one year, for the period ending on the date of publication of NIT. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly draws our attention to Clause XVIII(c) of the Tender Documents, which postulates that in the event, a tenderer is disqualified, he can, within two working days from the date of his disqualification, submit his grievance to the General Manager (Region) through GeM portal. And, the General Manager (Region) is to redress his grievance(s) by passing Speaking Order within seven (7) working days, and thereafter the price bid(s) would be opened. He submits, although the technical results were uploaded by the Corporation on August 27, 2024, butinadvertently and due to certain unforeseeable circumstances, the petitioner did not check the results uploaded till August 30, 2024. However, immediately after coming to know that he was declared ineligible, the petitioner, vide representation dated August 31, 2024 (P-6), questioned the validity of the decision of the respondent-authorities PRINCE CHAWLA by which he was declared noncompliant. It is submitted that the price

bid submitted by the petitioner is 214% ASOR below as compared to M/s Jind Transport, the tenderer who has been adjudged L1. Be that as it may, he submits that the respondent-Corporation has failed to respond to the representation submitted by the petitioner, which is still pending consideration. Thus, this petition. Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate is present in Court on behalf of the respondent-FCI. At the outset, he submits, as concededly the petitioner did not submit any objection/ grievance in terms of Clause 18(c) of the Tender Documents, the authority, in sync with the time-lines envisaged under the tender, has opened the price bid(s), upon which M/s Jind Transport was adjudged L1. However, it is urged, for the respondent-authority is already in seisin of the representation (ibid) alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner, let the petition be disposed of, to enable the competent authority to consider the concerns/grievances of the petitioner. And pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the course suggested by learned counsel for the respondent(s). However, he submits, the matter being time sensitive, the authorities be directed to take a decision within a specified time. In response, learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that necessary orders shall be passed within a period of 7 days from today. That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let the petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent(s). In the wake of the position sketched out above, as also the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is accordingly disposed of. This Court is sanguine that the respondent-authority shall consider/examine the matter in the right earnest, and as submitted by learned counsel appearing on its behalf, would pass the necessary orders within the stipulated period."

.    !he authorit" has now passed a spea7ing order:* "This order is to decide a representation of Om Prakash Arya dated 31.08.2024 received through e-mail against his disqualification for participating in HTC Gohana RH Gohana in which the bidder has submitted the Bank Statement of Last one-year w.e.f. 01st July PRINCE CHAWLA

2023 to 10th July 2024. This is in the wake of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Order dated 03-09-2024. On 19.06.2024, this office issued Tender Notice GeM/2024/B/5067588 dated 19.06.2024 for the appointment of Handling & Transport Contractor (HTC) at Centre HTC Gohana for a period of two years. On 10.07.2024, The bidder Om Prakash Arya submitted its Bids/Documents for being appointed as the contractor for HTC Gohana. The other two bidders being Jind Transport Company & Poonam Transport Company. On 27.08.2024 the bid of Om Prakash Arya was technically rejected on GeM by the technical evaluation committee citing reason "The technical bid submitted by the bidder i.e. OM PRAKASH ARYA is not in accordance with the technical criteria laid down in the MTF/NIT. The bidder has not submitted the bank statement of last one year for the period ending on the date of publication of NIT in case of non-assesse as required under clause 3(b)(iv) (List of documents to be uploaded by the bidders). Hence, the bidder may be technically disqualified as in-experienced bidder." Accordingly, the same was uploaded on GeM. The bidder could not upload its one-time grievance seeking remedial measures through the GeM Portal within two days from the date of disqualification as specified under Clause XVIII (c) Laws governing the Contract & Dispute Resolution. However, the bidder represented through email on 31.08.2024. Further, a committee comprising of three DGMs was constituted to review the representation dated 31.08.2024, keeping the view of gravity of the case. The committee analyzed the documents submitted by the bidder along with technical evaluation report and found the report in order. The undersigned has gone through the contents of the representation dated 31.08.2024 of Om Prakash Arya vis-a-vis Technical Requirements, reasons of rejection of the Technical Bid. On perusal of the concerned file/records of the case, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee found that the bidder has not submitted the bank statement of last one-year period ending on the date of publication of NIT in case of non-assesse as required under clause 3(b)(iv) (List of documents to be uploaded by the bidders) in accordance with the MT (for specific period i.e. 20-06-2023 to 19-06-

2024) and accordingly the bidder was technically disqualified. The decision of Technical Evaluation Committee and later three DGMs Committee have been found in order as the documents have not been uploaded on GeM portal while submitting the tender. In  view  of  above,  representation  dated  31.08.2024  of  Om Prakash Arya, having found devoid of merit and is hereby rejected in light of the above factual position vis-a-vis the provisions contained in the NIT/MTF."

A perusal of the initial order dated 27.08.2024 shows that the petitioner was held to be technically non-responsive because he had not submitted the bank statement for last one year for the period ending on the date of publication of the NIT as required under Clause 3(b) (iv). After the directions issued by this Court, the order dated 10.09.2024 has been passed in which it has been noticed that the bids were submitted by the petitioner on 10.07.2024. On 27.08.2024, the bid was technically rejected.  The  bidder  did  not  upload  its  one  time  grievance  seeking  remedial measures through the GeM Portal within 02 days from the date of disqualification as specified under Clause XVIII (C):-"XVIII. Laws Governing the Contract & Dispute Resolution -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -       -

(C)  The results of technical evaluation will be uploaded on the  GeM  Portal.  In  case  there  are  technically  dis?ualified bidders, the reasons for dis?ualification will be uploaded and price bid shall be opened only after two working days. If any of the bidders is dis?ualified, he may submit grievance (if any) to General Manager (Region) only through GeM portal within two working days from the date of dis?ualification. However, no  new  documents  will  be  accepted.  In  case  of  receipt  of grievance,  General  Manager  (Region)  will  redress  the grievance by passing Speaking Order within seven (7) working days after which the price bid will be opened."

However, he submitted a representation dated 31.08.2024 for which a committee comprising of three Deputy General Managers (DGMs) was constituted to review the same keeping in view the gravity of the case. The committee analyzed the documents submitted by the bidder alongwith the technically evaluation report and found the said report to be in order. The authority concerned then noticed that the  representation  dated  31.08.2024  had  been  perused  vis-a-vis  the  technical requirements. The reasons for rejection of the technical bid had also been perused. The authority concerned also perused the report of the committee of three DGMs and found the action to be in order as the documents had not been uploaded on the GeM Portal while submitting the tender. The representation dated 31.08.2024 was accordingly rejected.

12.    We do not find any error in the impugned orders because admittedly, the bank statement was incomplete and the contention of the petitioner that it was short by only 13 days is devoid of merit because a document which is required to be submitted has to be submitted and failure to submit the same, would go to the disadvantage of the bidder. It has to be borne in mind that mandatory provisions had to be complied with and it would not be open to bidders to contend that the document was not required for important purposes. The argument that in previous two tender inquiries, similar discrepancies had been overlooked is devoid of merit because  the  said  tenders  were  scrapped  and,  therefore,  the  said  examples  are virtually of no relevance.

13.    A  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  order  does  not  reflect  any  illegality  or arbitrariness.  We  have  not  found  any  semblance  of  malafides  in  the  decision making process of the respondents and are, therefore, not inclined to interfere. While arriving at this conclusion, we are reminded of the principles enunciated in

the cases of Jagdish Mandal versus State of Orissa and others 2007 (14) SCC 517, Silppi Constructions Contractors versus Union of India and Anr. Etc. 2020

(16) SCC 489, State of Punjab and others versus Mehardin 2022 (5) SCC 648, TATA Cellular versus Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Rajeev Suri Versus Delhi Development Authority 2022 (11) SCC 1, Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295 and Netai Bag and others versus State of W.B. and others (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 262. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(ARUN PALLI)                   (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE                    JUDGE

30.09.2024 Prince Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned :     Yes/No. Whether reportable :       Yes/No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25286-2024 Date of Decision: 30.09.2024 Om Prakash Arya ….Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Himani Jamwal, Advocate and Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.