IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Plain Cargo Solution (OPC) Private Limited & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 4391 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Tender Rejection - Non-Submission of RC Book - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 41, Rule 48 - The court discussed the rejection of a tender bid due to non-submission of RC Book for transportation of petroleum products. The court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 41 and Rule 48 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and their applicability to the case. The court highlighted the importance of complying with the specific pre-qualification criteria and terms and conditions of the tender notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' bid for a tender was rejected due to non-submission of RC Book for the offered Tank Trucks, as required by the tender notice. The petitioners challenged the rejection, arguing that they had complied with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to submit the required RC Books for the Tank Trucks as specified in the tender notice. The court also noted that the petitioners did not participate in the pre-bid meeting or make any pre-bid enquiry to clarify the document requirements. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioners' bid was within the authority of the respondents as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioners' bid due to non-submission of RC Book was justified and in compliance with the tender notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' failure to submit the required RC Books as per the tender notice rendered their bid non-compliant with the pre-qualification criteria and terms and conditions of the tender. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific requirements outlined in the tender notice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rejection of the petitioners' bid was upheld. The court ruled that there was no ground for interference with the legitimate decision taken by the respondent-authorities to reject the bid at the technical stage.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner no. 2 is the sole director of the petitioner no. 1, which is a woman-run certified MSE (Micro and Small Enterprise) company. The petitioners participated in a tender floated by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), which is the respondent no. 1 herein, on August 25, 2021 for road transportation of bulk petroleum products-black oil for 52 Tank Trucks (TTs) for two years. Corrigenda of the initial tender notice were published on September 20 and 30 and October 20, 2021. The last date for submission of bids, as finally extended, was November 1, 2021. The bid of petitioner no. 1 was submitted on September 20, 2021, for which an acknowledgment receipt was issued by the IOCL.
2. The petitioners allege that on receipt of the petitioner’s online bid application, the Assistant Manager (Contracts) ERO, IOCL verbally asked petitioner no. 2 why no RC Book had been provided in respect of the TTs and that the petitioner cited delay in the concerned registration offices in handing over RC Books for all five TTs to the petitioner, apparently due to the then prevailing pandemic situation. According to the petitioners, they received hard copies of the RC Books only in the first week of December, 2021, after initiating an email communication with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India on November 25, 2021.
3. On February 1, 2022, the IOCL Tender Evaluation Committee sent an e-mail to the petitioners, informing that the candidature of the petitioner no.1-company had been rejected during technical evaluation for non-submission of RC Book of any of the offered TTs.
4. On February 2, 2022, the financial bid was opened and the respondent no. 1 selected 12 bidders and uploaded the tender summary report on February 19, 2022 with status update of the bidders.
5. Challenging such rejection and seeking mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to accept the petitioners’ bid and to issue a Letter of Intent on consideration of the petitioners’ financial bid, as well as seeking other consequential reliefs, the petitioners have moved the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners could not submit the RC Books due to no fault on their part, but for laches on the part of the issuing authorities, and should not have been penalized for such non submission. Moreover, the petitioners had submitted sufficient documents online to prove the prior registration of all five TTs.
7. That apart, it is argued, the bias of the tender was on procuring TTs of latest models and the petitioners’ TTs were the newest in the fray, even compared with those of the successful bidders, which entitled the petitioner no. 1-company to get selected as a successful bidder.
8. Learned counsel contends that such rejection of the petitioners’ bid on the part of the respondent-authorities was biased and arbitrary, being against the best interest of the Government. Tenders for public utility services ought to be inclusive, to ensure participation of maximum contenders, which was discouraged in favour of some particular bidders in the present case.
9. The petitioners further submit that two of their TTs were registered in Manipur on June 15, 2021 and the other three on September 17, 2021, all of which were prior to November 1, 2021, which was the last date of submission of bids.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners complied duly with the provisions of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the MV Act”) which provides for registration of motor vehicles, as well as Rule 48 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, “the MV Rules”), which reads as follows:
Compliance with specific pre-qualification criteria and terms and conditions of a tender notice is crucial for the acceptance of a bid.
If two views are possible the Court should not impose the other view in the instant case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of tenders must be based on valid legal grounds and cannot be arbitrary or unfair. The court emphasized the importance of legal ....
The rejection of a bid in a tender process should be based on merit consideration and qualification for allocation, and parties must plead and produce sufficient material to substantiate their case.
The court upheld that adherence to tender guidelines by public entities is essential, and allegations of impropriety must be substantiated for judicial intervention.
Strict compliance with tender conditions, including the submission of a valid smart card along with the registration certificate, is necessary as per Section 41 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the implied power of the authority conducting the tender process to modify or relax tender terms in extraordinary situations, ensuring fair and rea....
The court affirmed that executive decisions in tendering must be devoid of arbitrariness, while confirming that non-compliance with technical criteria justifies rejection of a bid.
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.