IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, A.S.Chandurkar, JJ.
Minakshi Traders - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7006 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 7023 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 6955 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2023
TENDER CONDITIONS - E-Tender for Parliamentary Elections - Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Government Resolution dtd. 1/12/2016, Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines - The court analyzed the tender conditions set by the Collector for the upcoming Parliamentary Elections, emphasizing the need for fairness and non-arbitrariness as per Article 14. It upheld the conditions regarding tender fees and experience requirements, finding them reasonable and justified based on the scope of work and guidelines from the Central Vigilance Commission. The court concluded that the conditions were not tailored to favor any specific bidder, thus affirming the authority's discretion in setting tender requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The Collector of Nagpur issued an e-tender notice for setting up polling booths and supplying materials for the 2024 Parliamentary Elections. Several writ petitions challenged specific conditions of the tender, including a high tender fee and experience requirements, claiming they were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender conditions were not arbitrary or unreasonable. It determined that the conditions were justified based on the large geographical area and the number of polling booths required, as well as compliance with government guidelines.
Issues: Whether the tender conditions imposed by the Collector were arbitrary, unreasonable, or tailored to favor specific bidders, and whether they violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the authority inviting tenders has the discretion to set conditions, which should only be interfered with if proven to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. It emphasized the need for judicial restraint in reviewing administrative decisions regarding tender conditions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the tender conditions set by the Collector.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these three petitions, the same are being decided by this common judgment, which follows :
Preliminary facts and the challenge:
3. The Collector, Nagpur issued an e-tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023 inviting bids for setting up polling booths, supply of furniture and other auxiliary materials on rental basis to be used for conducting the impending Parliamentary General Elections 2024 in Nagpur District.
4. The challenge in all these writ petitions is to certain conditions contained in the e-tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023 and the corrigendum issued thereto, dtd. 10/10/2023 after the pre-bid meeting held on 6/10/2023.
5. In Writ Petition No.7006 of 2023, prayer made is to quash the tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023 and the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023.
In Writ Petition No.7023 of 2023, apart from making a prayer for quashing the tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023 and the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023, a prayer has also been made to stay the condition of the tender whereby the tenderers have been required to pay an amount of Rs.2, 40, 000.00 as tender fee and also to stay the amended clause 8 and the added clause 11 as contained in the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023. A further prayer has been made in this writ petition for issuing a direction to the respondents to accept the tender form of the petitioner by relaxing the conditions No.8 and 11 of the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023. In Writ Petition No.6955 of 2023, a prayer is made to quash the tender condition, which requires the tenderers to make payment of Rs.2, 40, 000.00 as the cost of tender form and also to quash the tender conditions No.7 and 8 as contained in the tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023. The other prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023 as shown in Item (I) Envelope No.1 - Technical Bid. It has further been prayed in this writ petition that the respondents be directed to accept the bid of the petitioner ignoring the impugned clauses of the tender notice, which are under challenge in this writ petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the conditions impugned herein are as follows :
Please pay Rs.2, 40, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand only) towards the tender application fee (Non-refundable).
(b) It is necessary to have the average financial turnover of the last three years which should be at least 40% of the estimated amount in the tender. A certificate of the Chartered Accountant in this regard is required to be submitted.
(c) An experience certificate signed by the competent authority about supply of goods, furniture and other auxiliary materials in the two districts during the previous Parliamentary General Elections.
(d) A certificate from the competent authority evidencing that the tenderer has completed the work up to 60% of the estimated amount mentioned in the earlier tender in any one year during seven years prior to 30/9/2023.
Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners :
7. Drawing our attention to the aforesaid impugned tender conditions contained in the tender notice dtd. 29/9/2023 and the corrigendum dtd. 10/10/2023, it has been argued that the said tender conditions are absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and suffer from the vice of mala fides and accordingly deserve to be quashed. In respect of the condition that the tenderer is required to pay a sum of Rs.2, 40, 000.00 towards tender application fee, it has been stated that the same is completely arbitrary for the reason that it is exorbitant considering the estimated tender amount of Rs.15.00 crores. As far as the requirement in the tender condition to the effect that the tenderer will have to submit a certificate from the Chartered Accountant evidencing t
Afcons Infrastructure Limited Versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another
Association of Registration Plates Versus Union of India
Jespar I. Slong Versus State of Meghalaya and others
Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Versus State of Karnataka and others
Montecarlo Limited Versus National Thermal Power Corporation Limited
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Versus Montecarlo Limited and another
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Versus Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and others
Silppi Constructions Contractors Versus Union of India and another
The formulation of tender conditions falls within the administrative domain of the authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or favoritism. The courts cannot interfere wit....
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
Judicial review of tender criteria is limited to instances of proven arbitrariness or discrimination; valid justifications for increased financial thresholds can be upheld to promote efficiency and e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in tender conditions, emphasizing the authority of the tendering entity to interpret and appreciate its requir....
The court affirmed that stringent eligibility criteria in public tender processes cannot violate statutory relaxations for Start-ups, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Judicial review of tenders limited to arbitrariness or malafide; eligibility conditions upheld if public interest served with multiple qualified bidders; bid time reduction valid with approval; ineli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of judicial review in tender matters, the need for commercial prudence in evaluating tenders, and the importance of fairness and non....
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.