Twenty Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and others

S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

The petitioner has challenged the rejection of its bid.

The petitioner contends that the bid was rejected on the basis of a clause in a corrigendum which was never a part of the NIT. A clause in the

corrigendum stipulated that the minimum service charges/administrative charges quoted by the firm shall be more than 2% of the basic wage

component only and no service charge/administrative charges shall be paid on statutory component (i.e. EPF/ESI, etc.).

The clause in the corrigendum on the basis of which the petitioner’s tender was rejected reads as under: -

“1. The minimum service charges/administrative charges quoted by the firm shall be more than 2% of the basic wage component only and no

service charge/administrative charges shall be paid on statutory component (i.e. EPF/ESI etc.). the service charges/administrative charges quoted by

the firm shall be up to two decimal value only. It is clarified that the service charges/administrative charges quoted by the firm by more than two

decimal point shall not be acceptable.â€​

The question, therefore, is whether the corrigendum was a part of the NIT or not. The respondents contended that the corrigendum had been

uploaded. Some of the bidders had in fact submitted their bids in accordance therewith. However, to leave no room for doubt, by our order dated

19.03.2018, we directed, as agreed by the parties, that the NIC shall determine whether or not the corrigendum was uploaded on the second and third

respondent’s websites. The second and third respondents, namely, Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, are the parties who invited the tenders.

Pursuant to the above order, NIC has submitted a report. The report states that the first page of the corrigendum was uploaded on the relevant site.

This is not even denied by the petitioner. What the petitioner contends is that the subsequent pages were not uploaded. However, Note-1 of page 1 of

the corrigendum reads as under: -

“Note:-

1.The e-tender form can be download (sic) from e-tender link available on the websites: uhsr.ac.in and from website: etender.hry.nic.in.â€​

The website: etender.hry.nic.in in turn contains the other terms and conditions including the portion quoted earlier. Thus, the entire corrigendum stood

incorporated in and formed a part of the NIT.

Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, relied upon clause 7.2.2, which reads as under: -

“7.2 Clarification of e-tender documents/pre-Bid Meeting:-

7.2.2 In case the bidder has any doubt about the meaning of anything contained in the e-Tender document, he shall seek clarification during the PRE

BID MEETING on the designated date and time as per Notice Inviting e -Tender. Any such clarification if agreed to by Pt. B.D. Sharma UHS

Rohtak would be issued as adde ndum to the e-tender document on the Pt. B.D Sharma UHS, Rohtak web site only and issued bid document shall

stand corrected/detailed to that extent.â€​

This clause is irrelevant to the above issue. This merely deals with the clarification sought by the bidders and answers furnished in respect thereof.

It is not necessary that the provisions of the NIT were also to be uploaded on the website referred to in clause 7.2.2. The clarifications are different

from the provisions of the NIT.

In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.