AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Thangkhiew, J
The matter has been posted today for consideration of interim orders as earlier it was adjourned due to the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to obtain instructions on the affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1, 3, & 4.
Today, Ms. P.Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced her arguments and submitted that the materials that were taken into consideration during the Technical Evaluation Matrix have favoured the private respondent by making the respondent No.5 the successful bidder. To buttress her arguments, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a table showing the Technical Evaluation Matrix specifically at point 2b thereof, which is with regard to the value of executing a single contract for providing Security service in a government Medical College/Government Hospitals/PSUs etc. She submits that the petitioner had obtained 4 marks in the said assessment and that the 2 marks awarded to the respondent No. 5 was not based on any cogent materials, inasmuch as, the only document that appears to show the value of the contract of the respondent No. 5 is on the basis of a letter which is certified by the Assistant Registrar, NEHU. She therefore, submits that this being a glaring illegality, interim orders are called for.
Dr. N.Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.Myrchiang, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1,3 & 4, has submitted that the tender committee after proper evaluation has found the respondent No. 5 more suitable and no interim orders are called for at this stage. He prays that the respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 be permitted to file a detailed affidavit in this regard.
Mr. R.Kharkrang, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2 GeM, and Mr. K.C.Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 also pray for and are allowed to file a detailed affidavit in this regard.
This Court has duly considered the submissions made by Ms. P.Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and has also examined the materials that are available on record. It is a settled law that Courts sitting in writ jurisdiction will not sit in appeal over the findings of a Tender Committee especially when there are no glaring irregularities or illegalities which might have resulted in a vitiated process. In the instant case, the challenge is only on the technical evaluation made by the tender committee and the point that has been raised is only with the award of 2 points on the question of a single contract which the petitioner feels if the same had not been awarded, would have tilted the award of contract in favour of the petitioner.
As such therefore, in view of this limited challenge and there being no glaring illegality or irregularity being alleged, no prima facie case has been made out for interim order at this stage and the prayer is rejected.
List this matter for expeditious hearing on 02-05-2025.
Affidavits to be on board by the next date.