The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed alleging public cause that to avoid transparency and open competition, the Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, has adopted the process of open bidding where only two bids were received for execution of the work of completion of CT/PT toilet blocks, which is in violation of Section 33 of the Punjab Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2019 read with Rule 26(3) of the Punjab Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2022 as well as notification dated 02.08.2018 issued by Department of Local Government, Punjab.
From a bare perusal of 2022 Rules, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal notes that there are various procurement methods available to the Municipal Council, which can be adopted. One of them is open competitive bidding, which was adopted in the present case leading to receipt of only two bids, out of which one was found technically qualified, whereafter a financial bid was also opened.
However, it is informed by the counsel for the Municipal Council that as per affidavit dated 02.08.2024 of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, the work in question has not yet commenced.
Be that as it may be, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the provisions of the 2019 Act and 2022 Rules, the Court noted that the open competitive bidding clearly provides in Rule 21(6) that on receipt of not less than two technically qualified bids, the Municipal Council can initiate the process of development work. It is not disputed that in the present case, two technically qualified bids were received.
As per Rule 26 of the 2022 Rules, provision of minimum of three bids to be received, as a pre-requisite for proceeding ahead, is prescribed only in the cases of limited bidding process.
The Court noted that the petitioner is under the misconception that the process to be adopted in “open competitive bidding” and process under “limited bidding” is the same.
“From the above facts, it is evident that the procedure adopted by the Municipal Council does not appear to be in violation of the 2019 Act as well as 2022 Rules and therefore, no public cause has arisen in the present petition,” the order reads.