IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
The Krishna District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women 86 Child Welfare Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 30097 of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging rejection of tender bid - Petitioner alleged arbitrary rejection without reasons - Court held that rejection was based on non-compliance with tender conditions, specifically Clause 2.2.1(f) & (i) regarding submission of audited documents - Judicial review in tender matters is limited and does not extend to merits of administrative decisions unless arbitrary or irrational. (Paras 29, 36, 37)
(B) Tender Process - The authority has discretion in evaluating bids and is not obliged to provide reasons for rejection unless specified in the tender conditions - The court does not interfere with tender processes unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 28, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a food commodities supplier, challenged the rejection of its tender bid for supplying nutrition kits to Anganwadi Centers, claiming it met all technical criteria. The bid was rejected without stated reasons, leading to allegations of favoritism towards another bidder.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was disqualified for failing to submit required audited financial documents, thus the rejection was not arbitrary or illegal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the rejection of the bid was arbitrary and whether the petitioner had a right to challenge the tender process despite being disqualified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection was justified based on non-compliance with tender requirements, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
1. Originally, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner against Respondent Nos.1 & 2. However, vide order of this Court in I.A.Nos.2, 4 & 5 of 2023 dated 27.11.2023, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were impleaded as party respondents and vide order in I.A.No.5 of 2023 dated 27.11.2023, Petitioner No.2 was implead as proper and necessary party.
2. Though Petitioner No.2, was impleaded as proper and necessary party, no affidavit is filed on it’s behalf.
3. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief :
ii. consequently to set-aside the rejection order dated 9.11. 2023 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the bid of the petitioner vide ID No 680036 at the Technical stage and declare that the petitioner is eligible to be considered equally along with other tenderers in a fair and transparent manner
4. The petitioner claims its position as a prominent manufacturer, wholesaler, and trader of food commodities, having successfully supplied food products to various Government institutions for many years. Specifically, it has catered to the needs of different welfare schemes, including the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Within the ICDS, the respondents have been tasked with providing supplementary nutrition to pregnant and lactating women to ensure safe childbirth. To achieve the said object, they used to distribute YSR Sampoorna Poshana (YSRSP) Kits and YSR Sampoorna Poshana Plus (YSRSPP) Kits at Anganwadi Centers, containing essential items such as Ragi Flour, Jaggery, Groundnut Chikki, Dry Dates, Rice Flakes, and Multigrain Atta. Tenders were invited by the respondents on a unit basis for the supply of these kits, covering with the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and divided into four Units, each unit comprising 6 to 7 districts.
5. In pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent invited tenders for supply of YSRSP and YSRSP Plus Kits to all Anganwadi Centers in Unit II comprising of Kakinada, East Godavari, Konaseema, West Godavari, Eluru, N.T.R and Krishna Districts vide Tender ID No.680036 dated 03.11.2023. Being qualified, the petitioner submitted it’s bid strictly in accordance with the clauses of the tender notice. However, the 2nd respondent rejected without mentioning any ground.
6. During hearing, upon receipt of instructions from the commissioner, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Guntur dated 19.11.2013, wherein it was informed that tender was finalized and allotted in favour of the successful bidder on 18.11.2023, this Court passed an interim direction on 20.11.2023 directing both the parties to maintain status quo as on date.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondents rejected the bid of the petitioner without even mentioning any reason. It is alleged that, despite the petitioner meeting all the requisite conditions outlined in the tender notice, it appears that the respondents have rejected the bid with malicious intent, seemingly to favor a specific bidder for reasons unrelated to the tender's requirements. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
8. Respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh filed counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition in I.A.No.7 of 2023, denyin
Montecarlo Limited vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited
Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137
Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
Tata Celluar v. Union of India
Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd
Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Ltd
Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; rejection based on non-compliance with tender conditions is not arbitrary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disqualification of a bidder must be justified, and an unsuccessful bidder cannot challenge the qualification of other bidders.
Tender authorities must adhere to statutory criteria and act transparently; courts will not interfere unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide conduct is presented.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with tender conditions and ruled against arbitrary actions by administrative authorities.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
Judicial review of tendering decisions is limited to assessing legality, with courts refraining from substituting the tender authority's decisions unless in cases of illegality or manifest arbitrarin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.