IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
Kanchan India Limited & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Government of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 6277 of 2024, Writ Petition (L) No. 6698 of 2024
Decided on : 12-03-2024
Tender Process - School Uniform Procurement - Paragraph 4.4.3.1 of Procurement Manual - The court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the tender process for school uniform procurement, finding no infringement of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or any other law.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions challenged the exclusion of the Petitioners from the school uniform procurement tender process, alleging infringement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and violation of the provisions contained in paragraph 4.4.3.1 of the Procurement Manual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioners were aware of the closing hours for bid submission and failed to raise any objection until after the financial bid was opened, indicating an after-thought attempt. The court also concluded that the exclusion of the Petitioners was due to their negligence and not at the instance of the State authorities. Additionally, the court held that any interference in the tender process would not be in public interest, considering the end users of the school uniforms are disadvantaged school children.
Issues: The issues considered by the court were whether the exclusion of the Petitioners infringed their fundamental right, whether the tender process contravened paragraph 4.4.3.1 of the Procurement Manual, and whether the Writ Petitions were filed with bona fide intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of judicial review in tender matters, emphasizing that interference should be limited to cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias. The court also highlighted the need for restraint in interfering with commercial matters and the limitations of the court's expertise in technical issues related to tenders and contracts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, finding no infringement of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or any other law, and held that the exclusion of the Petitioners was due to their negligence. The Writ Petitions were deemed to be filed without bona fide intention and any interference in the tender process was considered not to be in public interest.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule.
Rule is made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned Counsel representing the parties, these two Writ Petitions where subject matter of challenge is the same, have been taken up and heard together for final adjudication.
(A) CHALLENGE:
2. These petitions take exception to the impugned action on the part of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 which according to the Petitioners has resulted in their illegal exclusion from participation in the tender process pursuant to the tender notice dated 25th January 2024 which was issued for procurement of school uniform cloth material to be distributed amongst the students studying in the Government schools in the State of Maharashtra for the year 2024-2025. The primary submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that as per the bid document, the time available for submission of bid was upto 4.00 pm. on 15th February 2024, however, the portal, where the participating bidders were supposed to submit their bids was closed at 3.00 pm. itself on the said date which resulted in exclusion of the Petitioners from participation in the bid thereby infringing their fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have also pleaded violation of the provisions contained in paragraph 4.4.3.1 of the Procurement Manual as embodied in the Government Resolution dated 1st December 2016.
(B) FACTS OF THE CASE AS PLEADED BY THE PETITIONERS:
3. The State of Maharashtra is implementing Free School Uniform Distribution Scheme and in that endeavor it is providing uniform to all students studying in class 1 to 8 in Government schools. For procuring the said uniform cloth, a tender notice dated 25th January 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the tender notice) was published on the Government e-markets (Gem) portal according to which the estimated bid value of the tender was Rs.138.11 crores. The tender notice stipulated the “bid end date/time” as 15th February 2024 at 15.00.00. The said notice also stipulated the bid opening date/time as 15th February 2024 at 15.30.00 hrs.
4. As per the tender notice, the period within which the delivery of the item to be procured is to be made is 30 days. The tender notice was accompanied by e-tender document which contains detail procedure for inviting bids, the eligibility criteria, scope of work, schedule of e-tender process and other necessary details for bid opening and its evaluation etc. Clause 1(v) of the bid document clearly stipulated that the Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) which had invited the bids shall not be responsible for delays in on-line submission of the bid for any reason. It also stipulated that the bidders were accordingly requested to upload the complete bid proposal well in advance so as to avoid issues like slow speed, choking of web site due to heavy load or any other unforeseen problems. Clause 1(v) of the tender document is extracted hereinbelow:
5. Clause 1(vi) of the tender document also advised the bidders to refer help desk for any details about the Tendering process. The said advice was given by the tendering authority for the reason that the bidders were required to submit their offer online in electronic form. Clause 1(vi) is also extracted hereinbelow:
6. As per the Schedule of e-tender pro
Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.
The court emphasized the need for restraint in interfering with commercial matters and the limitations of the court's expertise in technical issues related to tenders and contracts.
The main legal point established is that technical errors in bid submission do not warrant interference in the tender process, especially when it may delay the implementation of a public project.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
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....
Strict adherence to contractual terms and conditions is crucial in tender processes, and non-compliance can lead to rejection of the bid.
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.