Back
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Samsuddin Sekh – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
The appellant is aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.01.2022 whereby WPA 20770 of 2021 has been dismissed.
2. The appellant was one of the bidder in response to the notice inviting electronic bid dated 14th of June, 2021 for the work of collection of toll tax from the vehicular traffic plying through the Lochon Das Setu over river Ajoy at Natunhat under Burdwan North Highway Division. Initially the technical bid of the appellant was rejected but thereafter the respondents had entered into correspondence with the appellant but ultimately the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 was issued cancelling the tender on the ground that rate quoted by the highest bidder was less than the reserved bid value.
3. Learned Single Judge considering the entire circumstances of the case has found that surprisingly in the bid process out of the 5 bidders only the appellant was asked to clarify and rectify his technical bid. The plea of the appellant that though he was the highest bidder but the bid was wrongly rejected, has been examined and it has been found that the cancellation of the tender process could not be interfered by the writ Court and
Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with tender matters and should only do so in cases of gross arbitrariness, discrimination, malafides, or bias.
Judicial review of tender processes adheres to principles of reasonableness, emphasizing the authority's discretion in evaluating bids and prioritizing public interest over individual complaints.
Point of law: Supreme Court held that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing entire process of services ....
The authority to cancel a tender prevails under administrative discretion, based on the rationale of maintaining integrity, fairness, and transparency in public procurement processes.
The court affirmed that the interpretation of tender conditions by the authority is paramount, and minor technical deficiencies do not justify judicial intervention.
The tender process could not be recalled and cancelled for violation of a condition which was not part of NIT, and the subsequent recalling and cancellation of the tender process would prejudice the ....
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
