Judicial review in tender processes is limited; courts intervene only in cases of arbitrariness or mala fides, and evaluation methods must ensure quality outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. These petitions involve similar set of facts and the arguments advanced are also common. Therefore these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The Petitioner is common in all these petitions, who is challenging the order/decision dated 08/10/2024 passed by Respondent No.1 (Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Department, Thane) with respect to e-tender for providing food services to tribal students in hostels, under Integrated Tribal Development Project Jawahar, District Palghar, for a period of 2 years being 2024-25 and 2025-26. The Petitioner is seeking further directions to Respondents to issue work orders in its favour being L-1 Bidder.

CASE AND SUBMISSIONS

3. For the sake of convenience, case made out in Writ Petition No.14371 of 2024 is being narrated. On 24/07/2024, Respondent No.1 published a tender inviting bids for food supply for the hostel of tribal students. The Petitioner submitted technical and final bids through online process. On 30/08/2024, the Petitioner’s technical bid was accepted and it was qualified for opening of its final bid. On 04/09/2024, the financial bids were opened and since the Petitioner had quoted lowest rate, it emerged as L-1 Bidder. The rate quoted by the Petitioner was Rs.3,780/- per person per month. On 08/10/2024, the Respondents changed the method of valuation / assessment of financial bid and applied the ‘base-rate method’ with permissible range of -20% to +10% and thereafter, declared successful bidder, being Respondent No.4 in the petitions. The comparative chart showing necessary details of the petitions are as below:

4. Mr. Dighe, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted as under. That the procedure adopted by the Respondents is illegal and not permitted under law, in as much as the Respondents have changed the rules of the game after it started. That the concept of base-rate made applicable with the margin -20% to +10% was not declared in the tender document, as was done in some other bids at other locations. That as per the Government Resolution dated 01/12/2016 (“the said GR of 2016” for short) issued by the Department of Industry, Energy and Labour of the State of Maharashtra, the procedure about fixing base-rate is not mentioned. That after the financial bids were opened, the so called base rate is applied and it has been done to favour a particular bidder.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited this Court’s attention to the impugned communication / order dated 08/10/2024, which makes reference to the said GR of 2016. He has also invited the Court’s attention to the relevant clause in the tender document which provides for cost estimation and price reasonability. The said clause reads as under:

“3.1.2 Cost Estimation and price reasonability

3.1.2.1 Cost Estimation The procurement process revolves around the estimated cost and the subsequent price discovery. Correct estimation of price is vital for determining and establishing the reasonability of offers received from the suppliers. It is therefore, important that the rates/are worked out in a realistic, objective and professional manner. It is emphasized that there cannot be substantial variation between the estimated cost and discovered cost. A purchaser can consider to accept the price if estimated cost and actual price has a difference