AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed assailing the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent-Department dated 11.08.2026, whereby the bid of the petitioner in respect of a work named : Under the State Plan (Chief Minister Announcement No. 317/2013) Surface Improvement and Reconstruction work in Vijaypur Pharpani Paidal Marg Conversion in to motor road from Km. 0.00 Deval Malla to Km. 2.00 and causeway construction work at Sukhi River in Lalkua Assembly Constituency of Nainital District, has been declared non-responsive on the following ground :
“Tech 2 not submitted in JV format, Tech 9 (submitted quantities does not match with SBD requirement i.e. Bidder provided quantities for different Financial Years.”
The petitioners submitted their bid as a Joint Venture of two partnership firms namely M/s Prince Construction Company and Mohan Construction. According to Standard Document for Procurement of Works, the detail of bidders have to be submitted in a format prescribed at Section 5 of Tech-2, along with supporting documents. The other requirement, inter alia, was for submitting the contractor’s experience for carrying out the specified quantities of different works in Tech-9. The relevant stipulation in this regard under the Standard Document for Procurement of Works is as follows :
“The Bidder should have executed in any one of the 5 (five) financial years, the minimum quantities of the following works: [Insert type and quantity of principal item of the works to be executed] 1- Reinforce Cement Concrete (M-25 and above) – 50% 335.00 Cum = 167.50 Cum 2- HYSD Bar Reinforcement Work 50% of the 39.45 MT = 19.72 MT 3- Cement Plum Masonry Work 50% of 2427.50 Cum = 1213.75 Cum 4- Premix Carpet – 50% of 4846.88 sqm = 2423.44 Sqm”
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no Joint Venture format prescribed by the Department and Tech-2 also did not contain any column for submitting information by Joint Venture and, therefore, two Tech-2 forms were submitted to disclose the legal status of the partners of the Joint Venture. It is submitted that the same would accordingly meet the stipulation in the Standard Document for Procurement of Works and the rejection of the bid on the ground that Tech-2 was not submitted in prescribed format is unsustainable in law. The other submission is that in respect of Tech-9 also work experience of both the partnership firms were submitted in Tech-9 in separate forms and the observation of the Technical Evaluation Committee in respect of Tech-9 is also not sustainable in law.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that even though it was permissible to submit two separate Tech-2 and Tech-9 forms in case of a Joint Venture, according to him, the information furnished by the petitioner in Tech-2 in respect of the partnership firm M/s Mohan Construction was not as per the format prescribed. Elaborating his submission, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner instead of mentioning the name of Mohan Construction, as partner of Joint Venture, stated as follows :
“Mohan Singh Bisht Partner’s of M/s Sarvoday Colony, Damua Dhunga, Haldwani, Nainital.”
Further it is submitted that in the column where information regarding the bidder’s constitution / legal status was sought, the petitioner instead of clarifying the legal status, has stated as follows :
“Legal Status :- HN 9 Sarvoday Colony, Chafula Charaha, Damuwa Dhunga, Haldwani, Nainital.”
Accordingly, it is submitted that the information furnished by the petitioner in Tech-2 was faulty. It is further submitted that the requirement relating to work experience was in respect of execution of similar works in any one of the five financial years. However, the work which was disclosed by one of the partners of the Joint Venture firm namely M/s Prince Construction Company in Tech-9 pertained to the work done in 2025-26, while the work experience of the other partner of the Joint Venture namely M/s Mohan Construction related to the Financial Years 2021-22 and 2022-23. Thus, the Technical Evaluation Committee has also rightly rejected the bid on the ground that the work experience disclosed in Tech-9 was not in respect of the same financial years.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.
It is not disputed before us that in Tech-2 pertaining to M/s Mohan Construction as against the column requiring the name of the bidder, it was mentioned - Mohan Singh Bisht Partner’s of M/s Sarvoday Colony, Damua Dhunga, Haldwani, Nainital. Likewise, against the column requiring legal status of the bidder, merely an address was given. Thus, the information furnished neither correctly disclosed the name of the Joint Venture partners nor their legal status. We therefore find no illegality in the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee in holding that the petitioner had not made proper disclosures in Tech-2.
In respect of Tech-9, although the stipulation was with respect to experience in different works in one of the five financial years, the disclosures made in Tech-9 were in respect of different financial years.
Accordingly, the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal in any manner. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.