Jaipur Ready Mix Company and Anr. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi High Court · 26 Sep 2019 · 2019:DHC:4943-DB
G. S. Sistani; Anup Jairam Bhambhani
W.P.(C) No.10225/2019
2019:DHC:4943-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that ownership documents are necessary to qualify a technical bid when tender conditions require ownership of equipment, and directed inclusion of the petitioner in the qualified panel upon satisfying this requirement.

Full Text
Translation output
WP(C) 10225/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26/09/2019 W.P.(C) No.10225/2019
JAIPUR READY MIX COMPANY AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Advocate with Dr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Priyanka Pandey, Advocate.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC with Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Advocate, Ms. Swagata Bhuyan, Advocate, Ms. Shiva Pandey and Mr. Tilak Raj, ADE (SLF).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J.
(ORAL)
On 23.09.2019, Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned Standing Counsel for NDMC had entered appearance. We had directed her to produce the original file pertaining to the petitioner. Ms. Pushkarna submits that the original file has been received by her.

2. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted.

3. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2019:DHC:4943-DB

4. With the consent of the parties, we set-down the petition for final hearing and disposal.

5. An advertisement was inserted in the newspaper dated 30.08.2019 by the respondent inviting tenders for hiring of segregating trommels for bio-mining and bio-remediation of old dump waste at Bhalswa, Ghazipur, and Okhla dumpsites in Delhi. The bid process was divided into two steps; firstly, opening of the technical bid and secondly, opening of the financial bid, in terms of clause 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender. As per the Notice Inviting Tender, the successful bidder was to provide minimum two trommels at each site immediately after awarding of work, which were to be made functional on 01.10.2019.

6. The petitioner, while relying on clause 3, contends that he qualified the technical bid. However, Ms. Pushkarna explains that his document only shows receipt of the Earnest Money Deposit and nothing further. Be that as it may, we were informed by counsel for the respondent on the last date that since the petitioner did not meet the tender conditions, his technical bid was rejected. From a perusal of the original file, it transpires that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected for two reasons; firstly, he did not provide ownership documents of the trommels that he had proposed to provide on rent under the contract; and secondly, on account of the clause pertaining to financial capacity.

7. We reproduce both the relevant clauses below:- “Technical Capacity For eligibility, the bidders must possess any one of the following during preceding seven years prior to due date of the bid submission - have experience of manufacturing of Trommel with conveyors - have experience of Operation and Maintenance of trommel - have experience of Biomining - owning biomining trommel, which he proposes to provide on rent (the technical specification with photographs to be provided by such bidder along with technical bid) - have experience of operation and maintenance of scientific dumpsite reclamation/bio-mining - have experience of solid waste management Financial Capacity Contractor must have minimum turnover of Rs.1,00,00,000/- during any one financial year out of last 3 financial years from the due date of submission of bid. The Bid document must be accompanied by the audited Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and income tax return of last three financial years of the bidder.”

8. As far as the financial capacity is concerned, Ms. Pushkarna submits on instructions that the petitioner does meet the necessary requirements; however, in the absence of original documents of ownership of the trommels having been provided, he was not considered fit in the technical bid.

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and carefully examined the tender conditions, including the conditions which we have reproduced above.

10. A careful reading of the same would show that out of six criteria provided for the technical bid, the petitioner has relied upon Clause 4 which we again reproduce for the sake of clarity:- “owning biomining trommel, which he proposes to provide on rent (the technical specification with photographs to be provided by such bidder along with technical bid)”

11. According to the petitioner, admittedly the petitioner provided photographs alongwith the technical bid but he did not provide documents of title of ownership as according to him there was no such requirement. Ms. Pushkarna submits that this requirement was implied and the petitioner should have provided the ownership documents.

12. We find however that the tender conditions may not have been happily worded; and having regard to the fact that, according to the petitioner, he is a manufacturer and provides such machines, in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondent about the ownership of the machines, the name of the petitioner should be included in the panel of nine persons which has been formed for further processing the bids.

13. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. C.M. No.42193/2019

14. Since the writ petition is disposed of, this application is also disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2019