CWP No. 19424 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 19424 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.01.2010 Varindera Construction Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Housing Board and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.12.2009 Annexure P-6 whereby tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that documents of ‘Financial Bid’ were placed in the envelope marked ‘Eligibility Documents’ while according to the tender conditions, the same were required to be kept in a separate envelope. 2. Case of the petitioner was that it gave its bids in pursuance of Tender Notice Annexure P-1 but by mistake ‘Technical Bid’ was put in cover “Financial Bid” and vice versa. It was rectified at the time of opening CWP No. 19424 of 2009 2 of ‘Technical Bid’. Though the bid of the petitioner was decided to be considered but on a complaint by respondent No.5, said decision was reviewed and the Housing Board decided to reject bid of the petitioner. In reply filed by the Housing Board, this fact is admitted. The stand of the Housing Board is as under: - “2. That in response to the aforesaid advertisement, a total of eight applications were received. The main envelops containing the sealed envelops of Earnest Money, Cost of Tender Document, Eligibility Documents and Financial Bid submitted by all the interested parties were opened by the Tender Opening Committee on 22.6.2009 in the presence of their representatives. It was found that the petitioner’s envelop (which was marked ‘Eligibility Document’) did not contain the said documents rather it contained the Financial Bid of the petitioner. The Committee immediately sealed the said envelop to ensure its complete confidentiality and the secrecy of the rates. The representative of the petitioner, who was present at that time, stated that this discrepancy had arisen inadvertently and in every likelihood the Financial Bid and the Technical Bid Documents had been wrongly placed in the concerned envelops. He requested the Committee for assessing the eligibility of his firm on the basis of documents contained in the envelop marked as “Financial Bid’. The Committee accepted the request and accordingly the envelope marked as ‘Financial Bid’ by the petitioner was opened. The said envelope contained the petitioner’s eligibility documents and were accordingly CWP No. 19424 of 2009 3 assessed by the Committee. The envelops of the petitioner’s firm were re-marked as ‘Eligibility Document’ and ‘Financial Bid’ as per the contents of those envelops. All this was done in the presence of the representatives of the other agencies. No one raised any objection in this regard at that time viz. on 22.6.2009. However, after about two months, a letter dated 19.8.2009 was received from M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. stating that the petitioner’s prequalification papers and earnest money was not found in the envelop when the Technical Bid of the petitioner was opened. A copy of the said letter is attached as Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 3. That as per established procedure, the matter was placed before the Post Qualification Sub-Committee for evaluation and finalization of the pre-qualifications of all the eight agencies including the petitioner. The said Committee in its meeting held on 17.9.2009 scrutinised the eligibility documents of all the applicants. After due deliberation, the Committee recommended only six agencies including the petitioner for construction of the aforesaid flats. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is attached as Annexure R-2 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. It may be added that the letter Annexure R-1 received from M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions Ltd. was considered by the aforesaid Committee in its meeting held on 17.9.2009. The Committee found the contention of the said firm to be not tenable since the requisite documents were CWP No. 19424 of 2009 4 submitted by the petitioner at the time of the opening of Technical Bid. 4. That the Chairman of the Board being the competent authority for finalizing the prequalification of the builders/constructors while considering the matter observed as under: - “I have gone through the minutes of the P.Q. Sub Committee meeting and also the agenda of the meeting. Certain issues have been brought out at Point No.12 of the agenda item which need to be brought to the notice of the Board. Please bring the matter before the Board.” Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Board in its 350th meeting held on 5.11.2009 vide agenda item No.350.2.2. The Board after due deliberation resolved to reject the tender of the petitioner agency viz. M/s. Varindera Construction Ltd. since the same was not as per the provisions of the Press Notice/Bid Document. A copy of the minutes of the Board meeting dated 5.11.2009 as well as the agenda thereof is attached as Annexure R-3 (colly) for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. The decision of the Board was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. From stand of the Housing Board, it is clear that it was a case of mere mistake which was condoned by the concerned respondents and there was no valid ground to reject the bid of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that in view of CWP No. 19424 of 2009 5 tender conditions envelope for ‘Eligibility Documents’ and ‘Financial Bid’ were to be given separately. The said mistake could not be rectified. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that stand of the petitioner that mistake of the petitioner was not serious and could be allowed to be rectified is well founded and is conceded even by the official respondents. Difference between the bid of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4 is of Rs.3.60,00,000/-. 7. Thus, rejection of the bid of the petitioner was clearly arbitrary. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and order dated 8.12.2009 Annexure P-6 rejecting the bid of the petitioner is quashed. The respondents – Board may proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.01.2010 sk.