Back
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Ghosh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.
1. Both the appeals were heard analogously as the challenge in the both the appeals is to the same order passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA No. 26204 of 2023. The writ petition was filed by the respondent 1 to 4 herein who are the partners of the M/s. Ghosh and Roy Company challenging the rejection of their technical bid in an auction conducted by the Government of West Bengal, Office of the Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Manicktala, Kolkata-700054.
2. The technical bid was rejected for the reason “MPO cum Superintendent is not mentioned as per pre bid minutes as memo no. EH/MN/2373 clause no. 8 in Annexure B.” The learned Single Bench had allowed the writ petition set aside the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioners and including the issuance of the work order in favour of the appellant in MAT No. 2417 of 2023. Taking into consideration that the contract is for providing food items to the patients in the hospital, the learned writ court provided for an adhoc arrangement, permitted the appellant in MAT No. 2417 of 2023 to continue with the supplies till the tender process is finalised in terms of the directions issued by the learn
The rejection of a technical bid based on incorrect addressing was deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, as the tender documents had not been amended to reflect such a requirement.
The court affirmed that tender documents must be signed as per mandatory requirements, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', thus validating the rejection of non-compliant bids.
The court upheld the rejection of the technical bid based on the assessment of the bidder's capability to execute the work as per the tender document.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited; courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
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....
Failure to submit mandatory documents leads to rejection of technical bids as non-responsive, with no grounds for procedural violation.
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
