***

SATYEN VAIDYA, J. –

Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the annexure P-6 may kindly be set aside and respondent may be directed to award the tender in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the e-tender notice dated 24.03.2023, Annexure P-1.

(ii) That the writ of certiorari may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents quashing the award, if any, made in favour of any bidder, and respondent may kindly be directed to consider and open the Financial bid of petitioner and proceed thereafter award the work contract in the interest of justice.

3. Respondents issued notice inviting tender (NIT) for balance work of “A/R & M/O Theog Bye Pass Road” Km. 174/040 to 176/400 ( Devrighat to Premghat on NH-22 (NH-05). The bids could be submitted w.e.f. 24.03.2023 till 15.05.2023. Four bidders including the petitioner submitted their respective bids in response to NIT. The bid submitted by petitioner could not qualify the technical evaluation and was held non-responsive due to non-validation of registration as per Clause-15(a) of General Condition (IFB) of Standard Bidding Document (SBD).

4. The grievance of the petitioner is against technical disqualification of his bid. It is averred in the petition that petitioner had submitted his bid on 24.03.2023. His registration as a contractor was valid till 31.03.2023 and therefore, on the date of submission of bid he was qualified being a registered contractor. It is also submitted in the petition that the petitioner had applied for renewal/revalidation of his registration as a contractor on 29.03.2023 and he was accorded provisional renewal by respondent No. 3 on 03.04.2023. Reliance has been placed on a certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by respondent No. 3, Annexure P-5.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has appeared for respondents and has defended their action being strictly in terms of Standard Bidding Document. He submitted that as per Clause-15(a) of the SBD, the registration of a Contractor, willing to participate in tender process, should have been valid at least upto the date of submission of proposal. Petitioner is stated to have submitted his bid much after the expiry of his registration.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and have also gone through the documents available on record. Though, petitioner has made an averment in the petition that he had submitted the bid on 24.03.2023 but nothing has been placed on record to support such contention. Even after the stand to the contrary taken by learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to justify the averment made in the petition regarding submission of bid on 24.03.2023.

7. It is not in dispute that the registration of the petitioner as a contractor was valid up to 31.03.2023. Learned Advocate General has made a specific statement on the basis of instructions received by him that till the opening of bids, registration of petitioner had not been renewed. On the other hand, petitioner has placed strong reliance on document, Annexure P-5, to assert that his registration had been provisionally renewed by respondent No. 3. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reason that Annexure P-5 is a document evidencing only the submission of application by petitioner for renewal of enlistment as “Class-A” contractor. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner was granted provisional renewal. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the registration of petitioner as a contractor was not valid on the date of submission of bid by him.

8. Accordingly, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.

9. In result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********