IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
- P. NO. 2013
BETWEEN:
Safeguard Systems Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner
AND
Commissioner for Transport
Transport Department and others …Respondent
REJOINDER TO THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No 2 & 3
Petitioner most respectfully submits as under:
- The respondent has filed a statement of objections raising several false, frivolous and untenable plea. In order to controvert the same and place on record the true facts, this rejoinder is filed.
- As brought out by petitioner in its writ petition, on 10/6/2013 well before the 4:00 PM the petitioner had correctly submitted the technical and financial bids and after making all required submissions, when the representative of the petitioner clicked the “submit” link (to obtain the final confirmation), the e-procurement Portal notified “unknown error”. The petitioner could successfully upload and submit all the required key submissions/technical proposals, financial bid and the financial rate as per the RFP by 3:00 PM. The petitioner duly submitted financial bid as per Appendix – VI to the RFP quoting an HSRP Fee as calculated in Appendix – VI – Annex 1, Annex 2 and Annex 3. The encryption of the all bid documents including Appendix – VI was also successfully completed. Respondents have not denied these facts. They have also not produced the records of e-procurement platform that would show that petitioner’s technical and financial bids have been uploaded and accessible to respondents.
- It is further submitted that the representative of the petitioner had immediately called up the helpdesk of respondent No.3 at phone number 080 25501227/ 25501216 and requested for resolution of the issue. The first call was made at 15:04 and thereafter continuous calls were made throughout and till past 16:00 to resolve the issue. (e-portal call received ticket Nos.0000 and 0000). Only two ticket Nos. have been assigned by the respondent No.3/its outsourced helpdesk for their convenience. In fact when the representative of the petitioner had enquired why only two ticket Nos. are given for multiple calls, the helpdesk had stated that all the call have been clubbed into two tickets. The details of the calls made by the petitioner can be verified from the records of respondent No.2, which are suppressed by the respondents. Hence, the contention of the respondent that ticket No. 0000 was closed at 15:20:20 hrs and petitioner had again called at 15:55:10 hrs is incorrect and misleading.
- At the specific request of the helpdesk the petitioner inspite of reservations, even provided its portal login password as it was informed that without the same the snag could not be resolved. As suggested by the help desk petitioner tried to obtain the final confirmation for having submission through different computers, different browsers and through different internet connections and with all browser setting changes and Digital Signature Certificate changes as instructed by the helpdesk personnel at e-procurement portal. However, the portal continued to notify “unknown error” even when different computers, different browsers and different internet connections were used. These facts are also not denied by the respondents.
- The respondents have falsely contended that petitioner’s system did not have E- token driver. The petitioner denies the contention as being totally false and baseless. All the systems used by the petitioner had E- token driver. The fact that petitioner had successfully completed the encryption of the all bid documents including Appendix – VI and the final green tick marks were duly notified for all individual submissions, which is not controverted by the respondents, shows that petitioner’s system had E- token driver. In absence of E- token driver these steps could not have been completed. There was nothing wrong/lacking is the system / or internet connection of the petitioner, as falsely alleged by respondents. Respondents have not even produced records on the basis of which the they have contention that petitioner had not installed E- token driver. Hence, the contention needs to be rejected.
- It is submitted that when the matter was listed on 20/6/2013 and petitioner pleaded urgency and pressed for interim order, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant 10 days time finally to respondents to file objections. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, being the main contensting respondents did not file the objections in time granted by this Hon'ble Court. In the meantime, taking advantage of absence of an interim order and to present the petitioner with a fait accompali situation, the respondents have opened the financial bids of two bidder viz. L Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and R Technologies Ltd., who had remained in the fray. The said bidders have made financial bids which is much higher than that the financial bid made by the petitioner, which can be verified with the records of respondent N0.3. Therefore, if he financial bid of the petitioner, which is available with the respondents on the procurement portal is considered, the same would sub serve the public interest and would further the object behind procurement through public bids viz. obtaining of the best bid. Copies of the financial bids of the said bidders are produced herewith as Annexure L and M Copy of the financial bid of the petitioner is produced herewith as Annexure N.
- Petitioner denies all averments in the statement of objections, which are inconsistent with the stand of the petitioner. Petitioner also reiterates the averment in the writ petition.
WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the writ petition in terms prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
Dated: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
- P. NO. 2013
BETWEEN:
Safeguard Systems Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner
AND
Commissioner for Transport
Transport Department and others …Respondents
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, ABC, S/o late XYZ, Aged about 44 years, R/at g-4, Bangalore, now in Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
- I state that I am the authorised representative of the petitioner. I am fully conversant with the facts of the case. I am authorized by petitioner to swear to this affidavit on its behalf.
- I state that contents of accompanying rejoinder vide para 1 to ___ are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.
DEPONENT
I the above named deponent do hereby declare that the contents of para 1 to______ of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Bangalore
Dated DEPONENT
Identified by m
Advocate
No. of Corrections
