IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
(11.8.2022)
CWJC Nos. 208, 211 of 2020
JMC Projects (India) Ltd. : Petitioner
(in both)
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
(in both)
Government Contract–Tender–Rejection of technical bid on the ground of being non-responsive–There is no prescription in NIT that permits a right to bidder to be heard–Tenderer/bidder has no other right except right to equality and fair treatment in matters of evaluation of competitive bids–Owner or employer of a project, having authored tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents–No prejudice has been caused to petitioner–Insistence on futile exercise of natural justice would be empty formality–Decision of Technical Tender Committee does not involve either a penal, civil or stigmatic consequence–Principles of natural justice will not be attracted. (Paras 51 and 52)
Government Contract–Tender–Rejection of technical bid on the ground of being non-responsive–Judicial restraint should be maintained in administrative action–Court should not sit as a Court of appeal but should merely review manner in which decision was made since Court does not have expertise to correct administrative decision and permitting review of administrative decision would be permitting, substituting its own decision, without necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible–If decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts should not exercise power of judicial review and should not interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out–Writ Petitions dismissed. (Paras 54, 57 and 58)
State of Kerala Vs. Zoom Developers (P) Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 563; Vodafone International Holding B.V. Vs. Union of India (UOI), 2012 (6) SCC 613; Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, (2000) 5 SCC 287; Mahabir Auto Stores Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, (1990) 3 SCC 752–Distinguished.
Afcon Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; State of U.P. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC Online SC 847; Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; State of Gujarat Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552; Purvankara Projects Ltd Vs. Hotel Venus International, (2007) 10 SCC 33; J.R. Vohra Vs. India Export House Pvt. Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 712; Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A.-Titagarh Wagons Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 486; Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759; Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Anoj Kumar Garwala, 2019 SCC Online SC 89; Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 215; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 336–Relied.
Core Projects and Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, 2011 (59) BLJR 183 : (2010) SCC Online Pat 916; M/s Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 2017 SCC Online Del 8747; Rohde & Schwarz Gmbh & Co. KG Vs. Airport Authority of India, MANU/DE/5017/2013; West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451; Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 53; Green Polytubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/ 0011/2002; Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation, (2001) 8 SCC 491; Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HLL Lifecare Ltd., 2002 SCC Online Del 500; Reliance Energy Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1; Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Issac Pater, (1994) 4 SCC 104; Jagdish Rai Mongha Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 P&H 33; Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contactors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Vs. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors, 2020 SCC Online SC 1035; Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405–Referred.
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and accordingly, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by the present singular order.
2. The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed for declaring that the petitioner qualifies the criteria laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) and 4.5(D) of the Instruction to Bidders contained in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.6.2019 and consequently, hold that the technical bid submitted by the petitioner qua the aforesaid two cases is responsive in terms of Clause 25.1 of the Instruction to Bidders contained in the NIT dated 10.6.2019, floated by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “BMSICL”). The petitioner of the aforesaid two cases has further prayed for quashing the minutes / proceedings of the meeting of the Technical Tender Committee of the Respondent No. 2 dated 03.01.2020 whereby and whereunder the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected. Consequently, it has been prayed that the Respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the financial bid submitted by the petitioner for construction of Government Medical College and Hospital at Begusarai and Buxar, respectively.
Facts of the Case
3. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that a Notice Inviting Tender bearing NIT No. BNSICL/Infra/22/219 dated 10.06.2019 was issued by the Respondent No. 2, inviting tender through the e-procurement process from firms/ contractors of repute, specialized in civil works, for construction of Medical Colleges and Hospitals with earthquake resistant structure in the districts of Vaishali, Begusarai, Sitamarhi, Jamui, Buxar and Madhubani in the State of Bihar. The last date for submission of the bid mentioned in the NIT was 29.07.2019 and the date / time and place for opening the tender was fixed as 31.7.2019 at 3:30 pm. at the office of the Respondent No. 2, however, the same was extended from time to time vide various corrigendum, which is not in dispute. The petitioner had participated in the NIT and submitted its technical bid on 18.11.2019 for construction of Government Medical College and Hospital Campus at Begusarai, as far as the first case is concerned and for construction of Government Medical College and Hospital Campus in the District of Buxar, as far as the second case is concerned. The petitioner had also furnished the earnest money through bank guarantees dated 05.11.2019. It is the case of the petitioner of both the aforesaid cases that although the petitioner qualifies on all counts in terms of the Instruction to Bidders and had therefore participated in the bidding process, however, the Technical Tender Committee, in its meeting held on 13.12.2019, has held the bid of the petitioner to be non-responsive for both the tenders pertaining to the construction of Government Medical College and Hospital at Begusarai and Buxar, by holding that the petitioner was not qualifying the criteria laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of the Instruction to Bidders. Thus, the Technical Tender Committee in paragraphs no. 2.4 and 5.5 of its minutes of meeting dated 13.12.2019 had recommended for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner noting that there is an apparent dichotomy between two certificates, dated 27.06.2017 and 31.10.2018, issued by HSCC (India) Ltd., certifying the work done by the petitioner pertaining to construction of Hospital / OPD and other associated works of Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College at Karnal, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “KCGMC”) and therefore, it is doubtful that the work of KCGMC project was completed by the petitioner in the financial year 2016-2017.
4. At this juncture, it would be rel
A company is not required to disclose ongoing commitments of its directors that have not been officially transferred to it, as it constitutes a separate legal entity.
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.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to essential tender conditions and minimal judicial interference in matters of government contracts, upholding the Tender Committee's decision to rejec....
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.