<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the rejection of a bid by the Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation (UPSBC) Ltd, for construction of an elevated corridor in Madhya Pradesh, for suppressing information about filing of a charge sheet in a case of a 2018 flyover collapse that claimed lives of 15 persons in Varanasi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices R F Nariman and K M Joseph set aside a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has held as on the date of submission of the technical bid, since no investigation was pending, there was no suppression of facts by UPSBC.<br /><br />The notice inviting a tender by the Madhya Pradesh PWD for the construction of 7.4 km-long elevated corridor at Indore, with an estimated cost of Rs 272.66 crore within 24 months, mandated disclosure of pending investigation by the bidder.</p>.<p>In respect of UPSBC, an FIR was lodged on May 15, 2018 after a particular flyover, constructed by it at Varanasi, had collapsed, killing 15 persons and injuring 11 persons. The investigation resulted in a charge sheet. After the trial commenced, the Allahabad High Court, however, on July 30, 2019 stayed it.</p>.<p>The UPSBC's counsel contended that it was justified in going by the literal reading of the document, which only required a disclosure of pending investigations.</p>.<p>Rejecting the contention, the top court said it must defer to the understanding of clauses in tender documents as per the issuing authority unless there was perversity or mala fides.</p>.<p>"Clearly in the facts of the present case, though the investigation is no longer pending and though there is no conviction by a court of law, UPSBC has certainly been “indicted” and a charge sheet has been filed in which a trial is pending, though stayed by the High Court," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said MP's Additional Advocate General Saurabh Mishra was correct that an omission of facts or disclosure of incomplete facts in order to influence the bidding process would come as "the fraudulent practice”.</p>.<p>"In the present case, there is clearly an omission of a most relevant fact and suppression of the information that an FIR had been lodged against UPSBC and subsequently a charge sheet filed," the bench said.</p>.<p>Acting on a writ petition by UPSBC, the HC was "swayed" by the fact that the company had made the bid for a sum of Rs 306.27 crores, while another company Rajkamal Builders for Rs 315.80 crores, the court said.</p>.<p>A third company, which made the lowest bid, was disqualified for some other reasons.</p>.<p>The court directed the MP government to offer the letter of intent to Rajkamal at the same financial bid as that of UPSBC.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the rejection of a bid by the Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation (UPSBC) Ltd, for construction of an elevated corridor in Madhya Pradesh, for suppressing information about filing of a charge sheet in a case of a 2018 flyover collapse that claimed lives of 15 persons in Varanasi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices R F Nariman and K M Joseph set aside a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has held as on the date of submission of the technical bid, since no investigation was pending, there was no suppression of facts by UPSBC.<br /><br />The notice inviting a tender by the Madhya Pradesh PWD for the construction of 7.4 km-long elevated corridor at Indore, with an estimated cost of Rs 272.66 crore within 24 months, mandated disclosure of pending investigation by the bidder.</p>.<p>In respect of UPSBC, an FIR was lodged on May 15, 2018 after a particular flyover, constructed by it at Varanasi, had collapsed, killing 15 persons and injuring 11 persons. The investigation resulted in a charge sheet. After the trial commenced, the Allahabad High Court, however, on July 30, 2019 stayed it.</p>.<p>The UPSBC's counsel contended that it was justified in going by the literal reading of the document, which only required a disclosure of pending investigations.</p>.<p>Rejecting the contention, the top court said it must defer to the understanding of clauses in tender documents as per the issuing authority unless there was perversity or mala fides.</p>.<p>"Clearly in the facts of the present case, though the investigation is no longer pending and though there is no conviction by a court of law, UPSBC has certainly been “indicted” and a charge sheet has been filed in which a trial is pending, though stayed by the High Court," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said MP's Additional Advocate General Saurabh Mishra was correct that an omission of facts or disclosure of incomplete facts in order to influence the bidding process would come as "the fraudulent practice”.</p>.<p>"In the present case, there is clearly an omission of a most relevant fact and suppression of the information that an FIR had been lodged against UPSBC and subsequently a charge sheet filed," the bench said.</p>.<p>Acting on a writ petition by UPSBC, the HC was "swayed" by the fact that the company had made the bid for a sum of Rs 306.27 crores, while another company Rajkamal Builders for Rs 315.80 crores, the court said.</p>.<p>A third company, which made the lowest bid, was disqualified for some other reasons.</p>.<p>The court directed the MP government to offer the letter of intent to Rajkamal at the same financial bid as that of UPSBC.</p>
