The main legal point established in the judgment is that interference in tender matters is permissible only if there is a public law element involved, or if there is evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness. The court emphasized the principle that the tender terms are contractual and the tendering authority has the privilege to formulate them, and the courts should not interfere unless the terms are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

(Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Gauraj Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Alankit Assignments Limited and Ms. Gathi Prakash, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2.

2. By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the Request for Proposal Document bearing reference No.LIC/BDS/RTA/2023-24/001 dated 30th August, 2023 which has been published inviting proposals for appointment of Registrar and Share Transfer Agent (RTA) for a period of five years from 1st December, 2023 or a later date which may be decided by Respondent No.2. The prayers made in the Writ Petition are extracted hereinbelow;

“a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents or any other Writ in the nature of the Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the Impugned Request for Proposal (RFP) for selection of RTA bearing ref LIC/BDS/RTA/2023-24/001 dated August 30, 2023.

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari against the Respondents or any other Writ in the nature of the Certiorari of the Constitution of India or any appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Request for Proposal bearing ref/LIC/BDS/RTA/2023-24/001 dated August 30, 2023 and the same be declared as illegal, arbitrary and completely arbitrary, capricious, devoid of reasons and be quashed and set aside.

c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2, to stay the opening of bids and/or any process which may amount to acting in furtherance of the Impugned Request for Proposal bearing ref/LIC/BDS/RTA/2023-24/001 dated August 30, 2023.

d) For interim and ad-interim reliefs in the terms of prayer clause (c) above;

e) For costs

f) For such any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that evaluation criteria as per the RFP document is such that it restricts participation of adequate number of bidders in the bid process and that it has been tailor made to suit a particular participant. It has thus been argued that the RFP document cannot be acted upon and hence the same may be quashed and a direction may be issued to Respondent No.2 to withdraw the same.

4. An RFP document bearing reference No.LIC/BDS/RTA/2023/001 dated 27th March, 2023 was published by Respondent No.2 inviting proposal for appointment of Registrar and Share Transfer Agent (RTA) for a period of five years from 17th May, 2023 or from any later date as decided by Respondent No.2. It is stated by the Petitioner that the Petitioner by means of a representation dated 1st April, 2023 objected to certain clauses of the said RFP document dated 27th March, 2023. The objection raised by the Petitioner vide its representation dated 1st April, 2023 was in relation to the requirement of turnover of the bidder in past three years and the procedure given therein for award of marks for the purposes of evaluation of the bid. It was stated by the Petitioner in its representation that fixing such criteria for evaluation will result in participation of limited number of service providers (bidders) for the reason that service providers having average turnover of Rs.300 crore in past three years are not available and that this criteria has been fixed for favouring a particular service provider.

5. Certain other objections were also raised in the representation made by the Petitioner dated 1st April, 2023, most of which related to evaluation criteria. Objection was also raised regarding performance guarantee which as per the said tender document was 5% of the financial bid value and according to the Petitioner, performance security should not be more than 3%. Objections relating to process of tender evaluation on QCBS evaluation system was also rais