IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., BHARATI DANGRE, J
Mahendra Realtors And Infrastructure Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 32013 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging the disqualification of technical bids in a tender process - The petitioner contended that the eligibility conditions were unconstitutional and that the tender process lacked transparency. The court found that the tendering authority followed the prescribed procedures and that the petitioners did not meet the qualifying criteria. (Paras 1-31)
(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the fairness of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. The court emphasized that the author of the tender document is best suited to determine its requirements. (Paras 17-20)
(C) Tender Conditions - The court held that the conditions set forth in the tender were not arbitrary or discriminatory and that the petitioners failed to comply with the eligibility criteria. (Paras 27-30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender conditions (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the tender process (Para 4) |
| 3. submission of bids (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. disqualification of technical bid (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on transparency (Para 9) |
| 6. eligibility conditions favoring respondent (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's view on tender process (Para 17) |
| 8. judicial review principles (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. decision of the court (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
(ALOK ARADHE, CJ.)
1. In writ petition (L) No.32013 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the conditions contained in a tender floated by Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), in particular, the eligibility conditions contained in paragraph 12F of the tender document. The petitioner has also assailed the action of respondents in declaring bid of the petitioner as technically disqualified. The petitioner also seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15th October 2024 issued in favour of respondent No.5 and seeks a direction to re-tender the entire work.
2. In writ petition (L) No.32852 of 2024 the petitioner prays for a declaration that order dated 1st October 2024 rejecting the bid of petitioner therein and any actions, orders or steps consequent thereto are unconstitutional, ultra vires, non-est, illegal and bad in law. The petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1st October 2024 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks direction against the respondents to conduct re-tender and reinstate the petitioner in the tender process.
3. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same tender floated by the Corporation and the issues which require consideration being common, the writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from writ petition (L) No.32013 of 2024 are being referred.
4. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of civil engineering. The respondent No.1 Corporation floated a tender for “Repair and Upgradation of Studio 1, 2, 5, 7, 16 and Hospital Building” at Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Goregaon, East. On 12th September 2024 a pre- bid meeting was held by the Corporation and various queries raised by the bidders were answered. Thereafter, the Corporation decided to modify the quantities contained in Clause 12F of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The revised Statement- VI was issued substituting the original statement. The petitioners participated in the pre-bid meeting.
5. The Corporation, thereafter, decided to extend the time limit for submission of the tender upto 23rd September 2024. In response to the aforesaid NIT, four tenderers viz. (i) Painterior Protective System LLP, (ii) Shandar Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Dev Engineers and (iv) Mahendra Realtors & Infrastructure Ltd. submitted their bids. On 24th September 2024, uploaded documents were forwarded to the Project Management Consultant (PMC) appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation, by e-mail dated 25th September 2024 informed the petitioners about the shortfall observed in their bids. The petitioners were asked to submit the short-fall documents on or before 27th September 2024.
6. The petitioner, on 25th September 2024 addressed a communication to the Deputy Engineer of the Corporation seeking technical bid documents of all the bidders. The petitioner, thereupon annexed five out of seven short-fall documents as sought for by the Corporation. The short-fall documents submitted by the petitioner were sent for reconsideration to the PMC for the scrutiny on 27th September 2024. The PMC submitted a final scrutiny report on 30th September 2024. The Tender Acceptance Committee of the Corporation, on 1st October 2024 verified the scrutiny report and examined the issue of qualification of the technical bids of the bidder
Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors.
Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies & Anr.
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Montecarlo Ltd. & Anr.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The person claiming justice and equity must come with clean hands.
Bidders must comply strictly with tender requirements; misleading information and poor performance can result in disqualification. Judicial review in tender cases should maintain restraint, supportin....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
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.