SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, A.S.Doctor, JJ.
Sangram Balavant Repe - Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 302 of 2024
Decided On : 18-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
Sanjeev Kadam, Advocate, Satyajeet Shirke, Advocate, P.P.Kakade, Advocate, O.A.Chandurkar, Advocate, R.A.Salunkhe, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the evaluation of tenders must strictly adhere to the conditions set forth in the tender notice, and any arbitrary deviation undermines the integrity of the tender process.

Headnote:

TENDER CANCELLATION - VALIDITY OF TENDER DECISION - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court examined the legality of the tender cancellation, emphasizing that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. It highlighted that the tenderers, including the petitioner, were initially deemed technically qualified, and the subsequent cancellation lacked a valid basis as the new Government Resolution and changes in NIT were not applicable to the tender process. The court underscored the importance of adhering to tender conditions and the principle of equal participation in public contracts.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of a tender in which he was the lowest bidder after being declared technically qualified. The cancellation was based on claims that none of the tenderers met the experience requirements specified in the tender notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the cancellation of the tender was arbitrary and unreasonable. It noted that the tenderers had been improperly evaluated, as none met the experience criteria, but emphasized that the initial qualification process was flawed and lacked justification for the cancellation.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the tender was valid given that the petitioner and other tenderers were initially declared technically qualified despite not meeting the experience requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that deviations from the advertised tender conditions during the evaluation process are impermissible. It stressed that fairness and adherence to established criteria are essential in public tender processes.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court expressing disapproval of the tender process but ultimately concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief as he did not meet the experience requirements.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to assail the validity of the impugned decision whereby the tender, in which the petitioner had participated and had quoted the lowest bid, has been cancelled.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned decision to cancel the tender is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioner had qualified technically whereupon the financial bid was also opened, where he was declared to be the lowest tenderer, despite that now the tender process has been cancelled taking a plea that none of the tenderers had technically qualified. He, thus, submits that once the petitioner and other two tenderers were declared to have technically qualified, based on which the financial bid was also opened, it was not legally permissible for the respondents to have revisited their decision and cancel the entire tender process.

4. Learned Addl. Government Pleader, however, on the basis of instructions, submits that the tender process has been cancelled for the reason that, admittedly, none of the tenderers, including the petitioner, qualify on the criteria of having experience of similar type of work as per the tender conditions. It has, thus, been argued that in view of the fact, which is undisputable, that the petitioner did not have experience of six work orders of similar type of works, no objection can be taken by the petitioner for cancellation of the tender process for the reason that apart from the petitioner, the other two tenderers, who had earlier technically qualified, also did not fulfill the said criteria of having experience of six work orders of similar type of work. The petition has, thus, been opposed by the learned Addl. Government Pleader, who has prayed that the same may be dismissed at its threshold.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us.

6. On 10/10/2023, a tender was floated by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Satara, for job work required for operation and maintenance in irrigation and non- irrigation period of V.T. Pumps with allied mechanical and electrical equipments including tools, tackles and safety equipments at Urmodi Lift Irrigation Scheme Stage I and II for the year 2023-2024. The petitioner along with three other tenderers submitted his bid and on 4/12/2023, the technical bids were scrutinized wherein three bidders, including the petitioner, were found to have qualified. Apart from the petitioner, the two other bidders, who were technically declared to be qualified, were M/s. Shri Samarth Government and Industrial Suppliers and M/s. Ajay Enterprises. The financial bid was, accordingly, opened wherein the petitioner was declared to be lowest bidder and, therefore, a letter was issued on 5/12/2023 to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to submit additional security amount in pursuance of which the petitioner submitted the additional security amount, however, instead of permitting the petitioner to commence the work, the impugned decision has been taken for cancelling the entire tender process which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

7. The reason, as can be gathered from the submissions made by the learned Addl. Government Pleader and also from the available records, for cancellation of the tender process, can be found at page 19 of the writ petition which is a copy of the document uploaded by the department on its website. According to this document, the decision to cancel the tender was taken as per the provisions contained in the new Government Resolution dtd. 18/10/2023 and further that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top