2025:UHC:2454-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 (M/B) No.114 of 2025 2nd April, 2025 M/s Beer Chand Ramola --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. G. D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J. C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Mr. Alok Mahra J.) Notice Inviting Tender was issued by respondent no.3 on 06.02.2025 under road safety work of installing crash barrier of State Highway-15 (Uttarkashi Ghansali Tilwada State Highway) km 51 to km 67.350 in Const. Pratapnager in District Tehri Garhwal. 1 2025:UHC:2454-DB 2. The case of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the requisite conditions as mentioned in the NIT and have submitted his tender for the aforesaid work. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, he fulfilled all the eligibility conditions, but bid of the petitioner along with one other bidder was declared to be technically non-responsive vide order dated 17.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3; while, the bid of other two bidders were declared to be technical responsive; that, the petitioner moved representation against the declaring his technical bid as non-responsive, his representation too was rejected on 19.03.2025. 3. The main ground canvassed by the petitioner is that he was not communicated about his bid being declared non responsive within time. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the bid of the petitioner has rightly been declared technically non-responsive and his representation too has been rejected, the relevant para of the order dated 19.03.2025 reads as under:- 2 2025:UHC:2454-DB “With reference to the above-mentioned subject, this is to inform you that upon detailed technical evaluation of your submitted bid for the road safety works, it is found that the Fin-3 submitted by the CA was issued on 14-02-2025, whereas UDIN verification was recorded on 19-12-2024.The Bank Certificate was issued on 13-12-2024, while the bid submission date was 13-02- 2025. The Date of Signing of the Document in the UDIN verification is 19-12-2024, whereas the CA-issued Fin-3 has the date 14-02-2025, leading to discrepancies in verification and presentation. The JV Partner, Mr. Sunder Singh, has shown a Credit Facility of 240.00 Lakh in Fin-3, while the SBI Blank Certificate issued in Narendra Nagar confirms only a Credit Facility of 200.00 Lakh. Due to these discrepancies, your bid has been declared technically invalid.” 5. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that the bid of the petitioner was declared technically non responsive, as there were several discrepancies in his technical bid. 6. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has failed to make out clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality against the respondent-department. 3 2025:UHC:2454-DB 7. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 02.04.2025 BS 4