Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15988 of 2021 Petitioner :- Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anay Kumar Srivastava,Ravindra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Arun Kumar,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Sri Arun Kumar, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent - Nagar Nigam.
The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the award of contract in favour of the respondent no. 5, who has been engaged as service provider by the Nagar Nigam.
It is admitted fact that the petitioner herein is L-2 bidder whereas the respondent no. 6 is L-1 bidder. The challenge to the award and contract in favour of respondent no. 6 is that EMD i.e. security money of 5% has not been deposited by the respondent no. 6, though, the petitioner had deposited the statutory amount towards the said head. The information in this regard has been provided by the Nodal Officer, JEM Prakoshth, Lucknow by the communication dated 22.06.2021, appended at page-'88' of the paper book. It is contended that under the Government Order dated 07th December, 2020 it was obligatory the respondent no. 6 to deposit the security EMD amount of 5%.
To controvert the said assertion, the attention of the Court is invited to page-'21' of the paper book, which is the tender document submitted by the petitioner itself. Clause (a) of the tender document reads as under:-
"EMD EXEMPTION: The bidder seeking EMD exemption, must submit the valid supporting document for the relevant category as per GeM GTC with the bid. Under MSE category, only manufacturers of goods and Service Providers for Services are eligible for exemption from EMD. Traders are excluded from the purview of this Policy."
A careful reading of the said clause of the tender document indicates that the service providers for services are eligible for exemption from EMD. However, such exemption can be granted only on submission of valid supporting document for the relevant category as per the GeM GTC along with the bid.
Based on the said document, it is submitted by Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent no. 6 being the service provider had been exempted from deposit of EMD as he had submitted valid supporting documents to claim the benefit of exemption.
It is to be noted that there is no challenge in the present writ petition regarding the document being submitted by the respondent no. 6. The assertion of the petitioner to challenge the award of contract in favour of respondent no. 6 based on the information provided by communication dated 22.06.2021 is found without force.
For the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 gp