- (1.) The challenge raised is to the correctness of the evaluation report resulting in rejection of the bid of the petitioner on the ground that it does not fulfill the parameters of long term financial soundness to execute the work. The prayer is for a judicial review of the illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of the impugned decision on the allegation that the rejection is arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions prescribed for evaluation and qualification. The precise challenge broadly is that on facts the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria at the pre qualification stage, and having satisfactorily crossed the first stage (Envelope-I) of Experience and Financial Capability, the petitioner could not have been eliminated, on allegations of deficiency of this stage that stood foreclosed for assessment, at the second stage of Technical Bid (Envelope-II). Moreso when the technical bid of the petitioner has been found to be valid. The thrust of the argument is that since the terms clearly provide participation for technical bid only after qualifying the first stage of eligibility, then this presumption strongly weighs in favour of the petitioner on facts, and accordingly a review or scrutiny afresh on the material of financial capability that already existed before the invitation for technical bid, was impermissible at the stage of opening of technical bids.
(2.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal for the petitioner, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Safdar Kazmi for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- State.
(3.) The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the determination of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner's bid is not liable to be considered on ground of long term financial unsoundness and also quash the financial bid evaluation report dated 24.12.2013 and 27.12.2013. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's financial bids in respect of Contracts 5A and 5B called under notice inviting tender dated 31.05.2013 having No. UPJN/AWSP/5A, 5B & 5C Conduit Pipe (NIT No.91/V-2) as the lowest bid and award the said contracts to the petitioner; (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent No.1 from annulling the tender process and re-framing the tender conditions in a way which would disqualify/prevent the petitioner from participating in the tender process. (d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; (e) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner throughout.;