AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ
Petitioner impugns the communication dated 28.08.2025, 10.09.2025 and 11.09.2025, whereby petitioner was informed that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected.
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP No.35735/2025 contending that the reasons for rejection of the bid had not been communicated. Pending the said petition the reasons were communicated and accordingly petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. Consequently, the subject petition has been filed.
By communication dated 10.09.2025 (impugned herein) petitioner was informed as under;
As per tender condition contained in Annexure/F for Technical Eligibility Criteria' Note (iii) the "The list of works as mentioned in the above table supported with documentary proof (Work Completion/Experience Certificate issued by_the organizations for whom the work was carried out) shall only be considered for evaluating the Technical Eligibility Criteria. "(Page 102-104 of Tender Document) .
As per tender condition- Explanation for clause 10 including clause 10.1 to 10.4 - Eligibility Criteria: point 1."Substantially Completed Work means an ongoing work in which payment equal to or more than 90% of the present contract value (excluding the payment made for adjustment of Price variation (PVC), if any) has been mide to the contractor in that ongoing contract and no proceedings of termination of contract on Contractor's default has been initiated. The credential certificate in this regard should have been issued not prior to 60 days of date of invitation of present tender." (Pagel5 of Tender Document)]
The NIT was issued on 11.06.2025 and as per tender condition above the cut off date, for issuing of Completion/Experience Certificate by the organization for whom the work was carried out, was 12.04.2025 (60 days prior to invitation of present tender). M/s KRCL, Navi-Mumbai submitted a certificate No186-Elect/C/J&K/ - , Work Completion Certificate dated27.01.2025 issued by Dy.CEE/USBRL, NR, Jammu
It was observed that the certificate was signed by the issuing authority on 27.01.2025 which is not within the 60 days prior to invitation of tender as stated in the tender condition. Thus, the issued certificate was not as per tender conditionExplanation for clause 10 including clause 10.1 to 10.4 - Eligibility Criteria: point 1 -Thus, KRCL did not fulfil Technical Eligibility Criteria as per tender condition.
This is for your kind information please."
As per the tender condition, petitioner could take benefit for the purposes of evaluation of eligibility criteria of completed work, substantially completed work or physically completed work.
Petitioner in the instant case is seeking to place reliance on physically completed work. As per the explanation to Clause 10 of the tender condition, the document required to be submitted was to show that the bidder had completed three similar works of not less than 30% of the advertised value of tender or 2 similar works of not less than 40% advertised tender value or one similar work of not less than 60% advertised value. Petitioner claims that petitioner has executed one similar work equal to 60% of the advertised value.
The explanation to Clause 10 states that a substantially completed work would mean an on ongoing work in which payment equal to or more than 90% of the contract value has been made to the contractor and no proceeding for termination of contract on contractor's default has been initiated and the credential certificate should have been issued not prior to 60 days of the date of invitation of the subject tender.
Petitioner filed a certificate dated 27.01.2025. Said certificate was considered in the impugned letter, which recorded that the NIT was issued on 11.06.2025 and the certificate dated 27.01.2025 could not be taken into account because it was issued more than 60 days prior to the issuance of the tender. The respondents considered the certificate in the category of substantially completed work as there was no completion certificate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Explanation 3 which reads as under;
"3. If a work is Physically completed and completion certificate to this extent is issued by the concerned organization but final bill is pending, such work shall be considered for fulfillment of credentials."
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the work was physically completed and as such respondents should have been taken it into account.
Percontra,learned counsel for the respondents contends that there was no certificate issued or filed along with the bid document showing that the work had been completed. He submits that for claiming benefit of completed work, petitioner was required to furnish a completion certificate and for claiming benefit of physically completed work petitioner had to submit a certificate certifying that the work has been physically completed, even though final bill was pending.
Perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner i.e. the certificate dated 27.01.2025 shows that the expression used by the authority issuing the certificate is that "the petitioner is executing railway electrification work in........''. Further in Column 5 of the certificate, the target date of completion is mentioned as 31.03.2025. The certificate does not certify that the same is a completion certificate or that the work is physically completed.
We may note that the petitioner in support of this petition has filed certain other certificates: one dated 18.08.2025; which uses the expression ''physically work completed''. Two annexures have been annexed with the said certificate which use the expression work done certificate 'Format A' and 'Format B'. Filing of the said certificate clearly shows that there is a procedure for issuance of certificate certifying physically completed work or work done. The certificate relied on by the petitioner dated 27.01.2025 does not use expression ''physically completed or completion certificate.'' It on theo ther hand shows that the work was being executed by the petitioner. Consequently we are of the view that the respondents did not commit any error in treating the certificate as a certificate for ongoing work and not a certificate for a physically completed work or work completion certificate.
Further, we find no merit in submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the certificate dated 27.01.2025 which shows that the CRS (Commissioner Railway Safety) authorization was granted prior to the issuance of the certificate for entire line is to be treated as a completion certificate and a certificate of work having been successfully completed in terms of Section 22 of Railways Act.
Said submission is to be rejected for the reason that the tender document does not require that any certificate is to be read in conjunction with section 22 of the Railways Act. The tender document requires a certificate to be issued by the authority certifying that the work has been completed or the work has been physically completed. However in the instant case, the railway authority issuing the certificate dated 27.01.2025 has specifically stated that petitioner is executing the work and also mentioned a target completion date, which is a date later than the date of the certificate, which implies that the work was not completed on the date when the certificate was issued.
Thus, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the respondents in declaring the bid of the petitioner as non responsive and rejecting the same petitioner as the petitioner did not produce a certificate as required by the bid document to show its work eligibility. Consequently, we find no merit in the petition.
The petition is accordingly, dismissed.