Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
M/s. Prudhvi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 13821 and 13590 of 2023
Decided On : 28-06-2023
Tender Process - Widening and Strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road - NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII - [DISQUALIFICATION, TENDER PROCESS, AWARDING CONTRACT, JUDICIAL REVIEW] - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the tender process for the widening and strengthening of the road, finding that the decision-making process of the authorities was not irrational or arbitrary. The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review in contractual matters and the need for restraint in interfering with technical issues in tender processes. The court held that the satisfaction of whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids and that the court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The court also noted that the interference in the tender process would lead to additional costs on the State and is against public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the tender process for the widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII, alleging that their technical bids were disqualified arbitrarily and the contract was awarded to another party. The petitioners contended that their bids were rejected due to technicalities, such as missing documents and solvency certificate issues. The court found that the technical bids were evaluated based on the uploaded documents and that the authorities were not obligated to seek clarification from the tenderers for documents not uploaded. The court also noted that the petitioners' representation was submitted after the completion of the tender process and the work had already been awarded to another party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision-making process of the authorities in finalizing the tenders and awarding the contract was not irrational or arbitrary. The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review in contractual matters and the need for restraint in interfering with technical issues in tender processes. The court held that the satisfaction of whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids and that the court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities' decision in disqualifying the technical bids and awarding the contract was irrational or arbitrary, warranting judicial interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review in contractual matters and the need for restraint in interfering with technical issues in tender processes. The court held that the satisfaction of whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids and that the court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the tender process, finding that the decision-making process of the authorities was not irrational or arbitrary. The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review in contractual matters and the need for restraint in interfering with technical issues in tender processes. The court held that the satisfaction of whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids and that the court should refrain from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer.
ORDER :
The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
(i) in disqualifying petitioners’ technical bid vide orders dated 1.6.2023 and not allowing them to participate in the price bid and reversing tender;
(ii) in allowing the 5th Respondent, who is disqualified technically, in opening of the price bid of the 5th Respondent;
(iii) in awarding the contract for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII in favour of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and contrary to the bid document and to set aside the same and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities –
(i) to disqualify the 5th respondent as not being the lead partner;
(ii) to cancel the entire tender process including awarding the tender in favour of the 4th respondent;
(iii) to issue fresh tender notification for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) –XXVIII;
and to pass.….”
2. The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
3. Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order.
4. The factual matrix in W.P.No.13821 of 2023 is as follows:
In pursuance of the tender notification issued by respondent No.3 vide Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem – Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII, the petitioners have submitted their tenders. The estimated value of the said tender is Rs.117,54,27,724 and the period of completion of the said works is 24 months.
5. The petitioners and two other companies M/s UBS Infra Project Limited (respondent No.5) and M/s VS Engineering Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad (respondent No.4) have filed the tender documents within the stipulated time and in pre-qualification, all the four tenderers are qualified and the technical bids were opened on 03.05.2023. After evaluation on 16.05.2023, the petitioner companies, who have filed the tender documents have been disqualified on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not uploaded all the documents in proof of experience and also not satisfied the condition of minimum executed quantity of C.C. and petitioner No.2 has not enclosed the solvency certificate in t
The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, especially in matters involving technical issues, and highlighted the limitations of the court's expertise i....
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
The decision of the employer in interpreting the conditions of eligibility in a tender document must be respected unless it is shown to be arbitrary, outrageous, and highly unreasonable.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The court emphasized the need for restraint and deference to the tendering authority's interpretation of tender documents, especially in technical matters, and highlighted the importance of public in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
