C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : September 05, 2008 M/S Gautam Builders & another ...... Petitioners through Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate v. Chandigarh Housing Board & others, ...... Respondents through Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J C.M.No.16717 of 2008 C.M is allowed and the replication to the written statement filed by respondent No.4 is taken on record. C.M.No.16735 of 2008 C.M is allowed and the replication to the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is taken on record. C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: C.W.P.No.14120 of 2008 The petitioner has challenged the orders, dated 21.5.2008 and 8.8.2008, whereby the official respondents have rejected his technical bid with respect to the construction of 208 two bed rooms flats (finishing items) in Sector 49D, Chandigarh. By notice dated 13.5.2008, respondents No.1 to 3 invited bids for the above mentioned project which, inter alia, required the intending tenderers to present their tenders in two sealed envelopes, the first one being a technical bid and the second one being a financial bid. The notice further required an eligibility criteria in the shape of (i) a valid enlistment certificate of appropriate class and (ii) proof of having satisfactorily completed, inter alia, atleast one similar work costing Rs.599 lacs during the last seven years ending last day of the previous month of calling of tenders in respect of such agencies/contractors who had not been enlisted by respondents No.1 to 3 in the appropriate class. The petitioner submitted his tender documents, and as stated above, his technical bid having been rejected, he is before this Court. As a proof of meeting the eligibility criterial condition No.(ii) (supra), the petitioner had annexed various certificates to the effect that he had indeed satisfactorily completed work of the requisite magnitude. However, by a letter dated 21.5.2008 the petitioner was informed that his bid had been rejected since “he had not supplied the complete documents required as per the tender document such as proofs from appropriate authority of having completed similar nature of works, certified copy of power of attorney in favour of the partner who made application, certified copy of the partnership deed and current address of all the partners of the C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: firm.” By replication, the petitioner has asserted that he had appended certified copies of the power of attorney, partnership deed, addresses of all the partners along with his bid and that despite that fact, by way of abundant caution had re-submitted the same immediately on receipt of the above mentioned letter dated 21.5.2008. In the written statements filed by the official respondents and the sole remaining tenderer respectively, it has been urged that the bid of the petitioner has been rightly rejected for the above reasons. It has been mentioned by the official respondents that “....the petitioners attached a few certificates of having constructed the flats of private societies and that of a few Government Departments....”. Further a reliance has been placed upon certain documents obtained by respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act to substantiate the plea that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criterial condition No.(ii) (supra). However, in the application dated 16.6.2008 filed by respondent No.4, questions No.2 and 5 are as follows :- “2. Whether the work is completed and what is the completion value ? 5. Is it correct that a completion certificate has been issued by PM (MAP) Project of value Rs.17.5 crore inclusive of value of Rs.6.125 crore for finishing items in the flats such as “Joinery work, Flooring work, P.H fittings/fixtures etc ?” The answers to the above questions in the information supplied by letter dated 4.8.2008 are as follows :- “2. The work is completed and completion value is C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::4:: approx. Rs.17,88,31,423.00 (Rupees seventeen crore eighty eight lacs thirty one thousand four hundred twenty three only). 5. Yet, it is correct.” It is, thus, clear that even this information goes to substantiate the assertion of the petitioner. The petitioner has levelled allegations of mala fide against the official respondents to the effect that the entire action of rejecting technical bid was made with the express purpose of facilitating the grant of the tender to the sole competitor- respondent No.4. On giving our anxious consideration to all the facts which have been brought on the record, we find that the petitioner could not have been declared ineligible for want of meeting eligibility criterial condition No.(ii) supra) without considering all the certificates attached by him. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the other requisite documents had been appended to the bid, the same does sound plausible in view of the fact that admittedly the petitioner was an enlisted contractor with the official respondents though of a lower class and, thus, in all probability, having prior knowledge of the procedure, had appended the same. In any case immediately on receipt of the rejection order, the petitioner had submitted the same and keeping in view the fact that the firm was already enlisted with the official respondents, the rejection by them on these grounds is, to our mind, a hyper-technical approach. Before parting with this judgment, we would however wish to enter a caveat. In view of the decision on merits, we have not found it fit to examine the allegation of the petitioner regarding mala fide. Normally C.W.P No. 14120 of 2008 (O&M) ::5:: decisions on technical matters are best left to experts and it is with the extreme reluctance that Courts deign to entertain such conflicts. This fact however places a greater onus on the functionaries of the State to be very circumspect in deciding such matters particularly in such a case where a controversial disqualification may leave the field open for a sole competitor. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the grounds taken in the impugned orders is set aside and respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to re-examine the bid of the petitioner and take consequent decision in accordance with law thereafter. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 05, 2008 'kk'