GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LTD. versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 04-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
·, 
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 930 
GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LTD. 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2907 of 2011) 
APRIL 04, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND .CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
' 
' 
Tender - Technical Bid - Appointment of vendor for 
District Mechanism for Public Distribution System - Issuance 
c of Request for Proposal (RFP) - Pre qualification (Eligibility 
Criteria) provided in the RFP - Subsequently, tender 
documents and bidder's check list amended - Issuance of 
corrigendum - Quality Certificate in the form of an active /SO 
9001 :2000 certification to be submitted alongwith bid papers 
0 and other documents - Appellant submitted copy of the /SO 
90001:2000 certificate of the previous year instead of the 
current year documents for the bid even though it had the 
active ISO 90001:2000 certification at the time of making of 
the bid - Disqualification of the appellant from consideration 
- On appeal held: Appellant had a valid and active /SO 
E 9001:2000 certification which it did not submit along with the 
Bid documents, may be due to inadvertence - However, 
whether such an explanation was to be accepted or not lay · 
within the discretionary powers of the authority inviting the bids 
- Rejection of the Technical Bid of the appellant cannot be 
F said to be peNerse or atbitrary. 
In the year 2009, the Government of Madhya Pradesh 
in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer 
Protection issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 
appointment of a vendor for District Mechanism for Public 
G Distribution System. The-pre qualification (Eligibility 
Criteria) was provided in RFP. Subsequently, the 
provisions of Section 3 of the Tender documents and 
Section 7 of the Bidder's Check List were amended. The 
Quality Certificate in the form of an active ISO 9001 :2000 
H 
930 
GLODYNE TECHNOSERVE LTD. v. STATE OF M.P. & 931 
ORS. 
certification was to be submitted alongwith the other A 
documents with the bid papers. The appellant, a Public 
Limited Company was disqualified from consideration 
since through inadvertence or otherwise, along with the 
Tender documents it had filed a copy of the ISO 
9001 :2000 certificate of the previous year, instead of the 
8 
current year, although, it did have the said valid ISO 
9001 :2000 certificate at the time of making of the bid. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The introduction of the Corrigendum C 
completely changed the provision in the Bidder's 
Response Form relating to submission of the Quality 
Certificate 
in 
the 
form 
of 
an 
active 
ISO 
9001 :2000certification. In any event, the appellant's 
contention based on clause 9 of Section 7 .1.1 of the RFP 
D 
as it stood prior to corrigendum is misconceived. The 
said clause 9 obliges a tenderer to produce along with 
the bid document a copy of the Quality certificate which 
is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid 
and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of E 
such Quality.Certificate. Where the Quality certificate will 
be expiring shortly and is due for renewal, the bidder is 
also obliged to produce the renewed certificate at the 
time Qf signing of the contract. The appellant claimed to 
have a valid and active ISO 9001 :2000 certificate at the 
time> of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy 
F 
of the said certificate along with the bid document. [Para 
32) (945-H; 946-A-B, D-E] 
1.2. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant 
proceeds on the basis~that it was entitled, almost as a G 
matter of right, not to submit the documents required to 
be submitted along with the bid ·documents on the 
supposition that, even if such documents were valid and 
active, they could be submitted at the time of signing of 
the Memorandum of Understanding. The appellant had a 
H 
932 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A valid and active ISO 9001 :2000 certification which it did 
not submit along with the Bid documents, may be due to 
inadvertence, but whether such explanation was to be 
accepted or not lay within the discretionary powers of the 
authority inviting the bids. The decision taken to reject 
8 the Technical Bid of the appellant cannot be said to be 
perverse or arbitrary. [Para 33] [946-F·H] 
1.3. Even the question as to whether 'NP' the 
consultant agency had obtained information that the 
appellant had a valid and active ISO 9001 :2000 
c certification and had passed on such info

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.