Uttaranchal High Court: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., allowed a petition filed by the petitioner where he was declared technically non-responsive and his financial bid had not been opened.
The petitioner had applied for a works contract for construction of a road, the petitioner had been declared technically disqualified on the ground that the bank draft which was submitted by the petitioner in the form of bid security, which was to the tune of Rs 6,36,000 and which was to be given by each of the bidders, was to be given in the name of “EE PIU Almora-2” but the draft submitted by the petitioner was in the name of “EE PMGSY Div Almora”. The counsel for the petitioner D.S. Patni and Dharmendra Barthwal had contended that there was no clarity in the bidding document as to in what name the bank draft had to be drawn.
The Court while allowing the petition clarified that the respondent/employer had not been clear while asking for specification from the eligible bidders and it relied on the Judgment of Alstom Hydro France v. Tehri Hydro Development Corpn., 2009 SCC OnLine Utt 474 where it was held that the bidding document which asks for detail from a prospective bidder must be clear and unambiguous and in the present case it was unclear. [Panch Ghati Construction v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 105, decided on 09-01-2020]
