2025:UHC:2268-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (MB) No. 97 of 2025 27th March, 2025 G.S.Matiyani and Son’s --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Alok Mahra J.) By means of present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Technical Evaluation Committee, whereby the bid of the petitioner has been declared technically non-responsible. Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 27.02.2025, whereby representation/ objection submitted by petitioner for declaring his technical bid as responsive and declaring technical bid of respondent no.5 as non-responsive, has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent no.2 had invited tenders for a work of 60M Span One and Half Lane Steel Girder Motor Bridge from Km 6 of Flyati Namti Chetabagad Motor Road to Km1 of 1 2025:UHC:2268-DB Khimal Kanauli Motor Road in Kapkot Constituency, District Bageshwar, under State Plan Construction work. Construction Work, amongst other works, finds mention at Serial No. 02 vide NIT dated 20.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 2.4.2 of the Standard Bidding Document, ordains financial experience of ₹117 lakhs in any one financial year, within previous 5 years. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 5 does not fulfill the requirement contemplated in Clause 2.4.2 of the Standard Bidding Document, because as per Experience Certificate dated 28.06.2023 issued by Executive Engineer, P.M.G.S.Y., Jyolikot, Nainital, respondent no. 5 has financial experience of ₹116.18 lakhs for the Financial Year 2019-2020, which is less than the financial experience of ₹117 lakhs in one financial year as contemplated in the aforesaid clause. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the Experience Certificate issued to respondent no. 5 reveals that he has completed work of 36 mtr Span Steel Girder bridge of Km. 2.00 of NH-87 Km 92to Maluti MR on 22.01.2021, i.e, within previous five years of issuance of the present NIT. Furthermore, there is no allegation regarding the ineligibility of respondent no. 6, who has been declared as L-1. 5. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 2 2025:UHC:2268-DB 6. However, it is made clear that the work should be completed within the period specified in the contract. If any time extension is sought, in that event, no extra payment should be made for deviation. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 27.03.2025 Kaushal 3