Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., AMIT BORKAR, J.
Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Food, Civil Supplies, and Consumer Protection Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11468 of 2024 With Writ Petition No. 11469 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2024
Tender - Disqualification - PQ5 - The court upheld the Technical Evaluation Committee's decision to disqualify the petitioners based on their failure to meet the eligibility criteria outlined in PQ5 of the tender document, emphasizing the authority's discretion in interpreting tender requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged their disqualification from a tender for supplying food kits for a festival, arguing they met the eligibility criteria. The Technical Evaluation Committee disqualified them, citing insufficient experience as per the tender's PQ5 condition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria specified in PQ5, particularly regarding the provision of laborers at external locations, and upheld the Technical Evaluation Committee's decision as reasonable and justified.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioners' bids was arbitrary and contrary to the tender terms, and whether judicial interference was warranted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interpretation of tender conditions is primarily the domain of the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to ensuring the decision-making process is lawful and not arbitrary.
Result: Both petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Amit Borkar, J.
1. These two petitions raise similar questions of fact and law, and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In both petitions, the challenge is directed against the communication/technical evaluation report dated 13th August 2024, pursuant to which the petitioners were disqualified and deemed technically ineligible in relation to the Request for Proposal dated 18th July 2024, bearing RFP No. ASHiVi_2024/CR-17/NAPU22, for the supply of food kits ("Anandacha Shidha") for the Gauri-Ganpati Festival during the financial year 2024-2025.
3. The facts in Writ Petition No.11468 of 2024 are as follows: Respondent No. 1 issued a Request for Proposal dated 18th July 2024 for supply of food kits ("Anandacha Shidha") for the Gauri-Ganpati Festival during the financial year 2024-2025 under the terms and conditions set forth therein. The tender document required supply of packages containing sugar, chana dal, rawa, and soybean oil, along with a polypropylene bag, to various Taluka godowns in the Districts of Maharashtra State. The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was set at Rs. 2 crore. A pre-bid meeting was held on 22nd July 2024. The tender document, issued on 18th July 2024, initially set the deadline for bid submission as 25th July 2024, which was subsequently extended to 26th July 2024. The technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 26th July 2024.
4. The petitioner participated in the tender process, submitting relevant documents, including a completion certificate dated 24th July 2024 issued by Respondent No. 1; the first completion certificate dated 24th July 2024 issued by the Commissionerate, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra State; experience certificate No. 739 of 2024 dated 24th July 2024 issued by the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board, Mumbai; and the second experience certificate No. 743 of 2024 dated 24th July 2024 issued by the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board, Mumbai. Additionally, it submitted an agreement dated 5th July 2024 executed between the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board and the petitioner.
5. The technical bids were initially scheduled to be opened by Technical Evaluation Committee on 29th July 2024. However, in light of the documents submitted by other bidders, the petitioner addressed two letters dated 29th July 2024, raising objections regarding the ineligibility of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By letter dated 7th August 2024, Technical Evaluation Committee requested the petitioner to respond to certain queries related to the experience certificates submitted, stating that the first experience certificate did not specify the petitioner’s requisite experience in "loading, unloading, or handling of food grains, food items, etc." under a completed work order. Technical Evaluation Committee also sought clarification regarding the agreement submitted by the petitioner, noting that the work indicated therein pertained to supplying labor and not providing labor, and that the experience certificate did not specify a completed work order of Rs. 25 crore in value.
6. In response to the letter dated 7th August 2024, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 8th August 2024 to Technical Evaluation Committee, asserting that the petitioner had extensive experience in food grain and manpower supply, including loading, unloading, and handling of food grains for various Government departments in Maharashtra. The experience certificate No.743 of 2024 certifies the petitioner’s experience of supplying 14,86,19,622 meals, valued at over Rs.931 crore, with Rs.161 crore attributable to loading, unloading, or handling of food grains, and Rs.220 crore to manpower supply, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria of Rs.25 crore for providing labor.
7. By letter dat
The court affirmed that the interpretation of tender conditions by the authority should be respected unless proven arbitrary or irrational, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in tender ....
Court upheld tender criteria requiring specific experience, emphasizing public interest and the rationality of conditions set by the state authority.
The decision of the employer in interpreting the conditions of eligibility in a tender document must be respected unless it is shown to be arbitrary, outrageous, and highly unreasonable.
The authority of the tendering body to determine the terms and conditions of the tender, the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, and the principle of judicial restraint in administrat....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
The court upheld the award of the tender to the opposite party no.5, finding that the bid was qualified and awarded based on the evaluation of the bid and compliance with the conditions provided in C....
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the deference to be given to the interpretation of the tender document by the author. It also clarified that the w....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
