G.S. Sistani, J
C.M. Appl. No. 3075/2019 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 702/2019
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by a communication dated 28.12.2018 issued by the respondent whereby the
technical bid of the petitioner-consortium in respect of Tender Reference No. CPD-48, Tender ID 2018_DMRC_362079_1, titled as Property
Development at Jasola Apollo Plot of DMRC, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts which need to be noticed are that on 20.7.2018 the respondent started sale of RFP documents to the bidders in respect of tender
relating to property development at Jasola Apollo Plot of DMRC and started online bidding process. On 21.8.2018, the bid submission date was
extended to 4.9.2018 as against the original date of 23.8.2018. As per the pleadings, the petitioner submitted its bid to the respondent on 4.9.2018,
which was duly acknowledged. On 22.10.2018, the respondent sought certain clarifications from the petitioner and gave time to submit the same on or
before 29.10.2018 by 5:00 P.M. The petitioner submitted all the clarifications and the documents asked for by 29.10.2018. Between 30.10.2018 to
27.12.2018, the respondent neither raised any objection nor sought any further clarification from the petitioner.
3. On 28.12.2018, the respondent rejected the technical bid of the petitioner-consortium. Post rejection, the petitioner on 29.12.2018 wrote a letter to
the respondent through its Chief General Manager (Contracts) seeking reasons for the rejection. Having received no response from the respondent,
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. On 22.1.2018, this Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 15.2.2019 and it was directed that the award of tender shall be subject to
the final outcome of the petition and the successful bidder, if any, would be informed of the said order through a separate letter. The matter was
adjourned for completion of pleadings on two dates.
5. A short affidavit has been filed by the respondent with advance copy to the petitioner who had sought time for filing the rejoinder, but no rejoinder
has been filed.
6. The respondent-DMRC has stated in its reply affidavit that as per Section 3 of the tender documents, more particularly, Clauses 3.5.1 and 3.5.6,
both the companies in the consortium of the petitioner were required to submit details of the existing lease/concession agreements/contracts for some
other space with DMRC as well as the due date of payment of the last pending invoice. The bidder had to not only disclose, on an undertaking, all the
lease/license/concession agreement(s) of DMRC property, as on the date of submission of the tender, but had to further certify that no dues were
pending towards DMRC on its account for more than 60 days in respect of any such agreement(s). It is stated in the affidavit that in the undertaking
furnished by the M/s Spirit Global Constructions Pvt. Ltd., one of the two consortium companies had faulted, since it deliberately concealed the factum
of the license granted to its earlier consortium in respect of DMRC’s Property Development at Huda City Centre Package-1 and Package -2,
both of which were awarded to the said consortium vide separate LOAs in 2011. This, according to the respondent, was deliberately done as two
companies in the earlier consortium had outstanding dues of nearly one crore each and owed to DMRC for more than 60/90 days as on 30.9.2018.
This apart, certain electricity dues were also due. The petitioner, therefore, was guilty of concealment and on account of this, petitioner consortium
was considered ineligible and rejected.
7. Today, we are informed by counsel for the respondent that the tender has since been awarded and the work has commenced.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been able to examine the reply carefully. He further submits that in case after going
through the reply he has any grievance, he would seek appropriate remedy available to him in accordance with law as the tender has been awarded in
the present case.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition and the pending application are not pressed in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner.
