Antony Dominic, J.@mdashChallenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, where by the 2nd respondent has rejected the technical bid submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext.P1 tender notice.
2. Facts of the case are that, by Ext.P1, second respondent invited tenders for the supply of drugs and supplies for the period from 01.4.2010 to 31.10.2011. The last date for submission of the bids was 4.2.2010 which was extended to 20.2.2010. In so far asit is relevant, Clause 4(p) of the tender notice required the tenderers to submit notary attested copy of the licence for the use of standard mark issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards incase of non drug products of which IS specification is insisted. In response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 tender, on 4.2.2010, for surgical gloves, of 6.5 inches, 7 inches and 7.5 inches. The bids were to be evaluated by the Bid Evaluation Committee. Subsequently petitioner was issued Ext.P12 notice, requiring him to cure the defects of non production of sales tax clearance certificate and BIS certificate prior to August, 2008. Petitioner produced BIS certificate. Thereupon Ext.P13 notice was again issued requiring the petitioner to produce the sales tax clearance certificate. Petitioner submits that accordingly the certificate was also produced and that the Bid Evaluation Committee by Ext.P14 proceedings qualified the petitioner''s technical bid.
3. It would appear that at that stage the 3rd respondent another bidder filed W.P(c). No. 15234/2010 before this Court contending that the BIS certificate produced by the petitioner was cancelled with effect from 17.3.2009. During the pendency of that writ petition, second respondent issued Ext.P8 notice dated 21.5.2010, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the irbid shall not be rejected. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. Thereply was considered and by Ext.P10 proceedings dated 1.6.2010 the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected. The main reason stated is that, Ext.P3, the BIS certificate produced by the petitioner was cancelled and Ext.P5, the BIS certificate which was subsequently produced by the petitioner was issued to the mon 6.10.2009, with surgical gloves of 6.5 inches only. It is stated that though Ext.P5 certificate was effective from 16.9.2009, sizes, 6, 7, 7.5, 8 and 8.5 inches were permitted to be manufactured by Ext.P6 only with effect from 16.3.2010. On this basis it is found that on two occasions, the petitioner suppressed facts about the cancellation of BIS certificate and mislead the 2nd respondent. It is accordingly that by Ext.P10 the technical bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected. It is calling in question of this rejection of technical bid that this writ petition is filed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P5 certificate though issued on 6.10.2009, was effective from 16.9.2009 and that by Ext.P6, additional items were ordered to be included in Ext.P5. On this basis, it is contended that the petitioner was an eligible tenderer at the time of submitting the bids. He also refutes the contention of the respondent containedin Ext.P10 that the petitioner suppressed fact of cancellation of their BIS certificate. It is on this the learned Counsel for the petitioner attempted to impugn Ext.P10.
5. However, on facts it is evident that the last date for submitting the bid in response to Ext.P1 tender notice was initially 4.2.2010, which was extended till 20.2.2010. Therefore, to be eligible to quote in response to Ext.P1, the petitioner should have satisfied the tender conditions, if not as on 4.2.2010 at least as on 20.2.2010. Admittedly in Ext.P2 tender submitted by the petitioner, petitioner had quoted surgical gloves of 6, 6.5, 7 and 7.5 inches. Ext.P7 proceedings show that the BIS certificate that was already issued to the Petitioner was cancelled with effect from 17.3.2009. If Ext.P5 is accepted as the fresh BIS certificate which was issued on 6.10.2009 and effective from 16.9.2009, the entries in the certificate show that surgical gloves of 6.5 inches alone is permitted to be manufactured. It is only by Ext.P6 issued on 16.3.2010, petitioner was permitted to manufacture surgical gloves of the remaining sizes quoted by them. If that be the factual position, as on the last date for submission of the tender, petitioner did not have BIS certificate authorizing them to manufacture all the products for which they had quoted by Ext.P2.Therefore as on that date petitioner was an ineligible tenderer. For that reason itself, the tender was liable for rejection.
6. Yet another contention raised by the 2nd respondent in support of the case that the petitioner had suppressed the fact sis by stating that it was Ext.P3 BIS certificate which was produced by the petitioner along with Ext.P2 tender. It is stated that by Ext.P4 the petitioner had also undertaken to get Ext.P3 renewed. However, counsel submits that as is evident from Ext.P7, Ext.P3 BIS certificate was cancelled as early as on 17.3.2009. The fact that Exts.P3 and P4 were produced along with Ext.P2 is no longer in doubt. If that be so, having regard to the fact that by Ext.P7, Ext.P3 was cancelled long prior to the submission of tender, the contention of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did make endeavor to rely on Ext.P3 to prove their case that they had satisfied the tender condition and thereby suppressed facts is well founded. On that ground as well I cannot find fault with the conclusion in Ext.P10.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the rate quoted by them being the lowest, public interest deserves that their tender ought to have been accepted. While it is true that the 2nd respondent is required to safeguard public interest, the 2nd respondent should also be held liable to adhere to the tender conditions. In this case the petitioner did not satisfy the tender conditions. If that be so, on the ground of public interest alone this Court cannot compel the 2nd respondent to depart from the tender conditions and entertain the tender submitted by ineligible tenderers. Therefore I am not persuaded to interfere even on this ground.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
