IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of the tendering authority's interpretation of the Integrity Pact, emphasizing that judicial review should not interfere in commercial transactions unless clear arbitrariness is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2024 in W.P.A. 16635 of 2024. The admitted facts are the appellant/writ petitioner participated in a tender invited by the IRCTC for provision of on board catering services in trains for a period of five years further extendable upto two years.

2. The appellant/petitioner having participated in the tender process by submitting their bid, they approached this Court and filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to quash the letter of award dated 4th April, 2024 in respect of the e-open tender invited by the IRCTC, which has been awarded in favour of the respondent no. 2.

3. The grounds of challenge in the writ petition are quite different from the submissions made by Mr. Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant before us.

4. It appears, the primary and the sole ground of challenge is that the Integrity Pact, as mentioned in annexure-G to the Notice Inviting Tender is not in consonance with the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission dated 14th June, 2023. It is submitted that in terms of the said circular, the Integrity Pact should also contain a clause that the transgression(s), for which cognizance was taken even before the said period of three years, but are pending conclusion, shall also be reported by the bidders should have been included in annexure-G of the Integrity Pact forming part of the Notice Inviting Tender.

5. It is submitted that by omitting to mention to such a clause, tender inviting authority has not only violated the circular of the Central Vigilance Commission but the conditions tantamount to diluting the essential requirements, which, according to the appellant, is to favour the private respondents and it is stated that such exercise is a mala fide exercise.

6. Before we examine the other issues, we need to point out that the plea of mala fide is a faint plea raised in the writ petition and we find there is no adequate pleadings and there cannot be a vague allegation of mala fides against the world at large for the appellant/writ petitioner to request this Court to adjudicate on this point. Therefore, said submission stands rejected.

7. The most important embargo, which the appellant has to overcome, is as to whether it will be entitled to challenge the award of the tender at this stage of the proceedings. Admittedly, the appellant was fully aware of the terms and conditions, as stipulated in the bid documents. The appellant with the eyes wide open participated in the tender process and having come to know that the award has been made in favour of the 2nd respondent, had sought to challenge the award of the tender and in course of argument before us, the challenge is based upon the Integrity Pact in annexure-G alleging that it is not in consonance with the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. We find that there is no challenge to annexure-G of the Integrity Pact in the writ petition and the prayers sought for was to set aside the award of the tender in favour of the 2nd respondent.

8. The learned Single Bench after having elaborately heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned Solicitor General appearing for IRCTC and the learned senior advocate appearing for the successful tenderer, has examined in detail the various clauses in the tender document. The learned Single Bench has rightly noted that the tendering authority viz., IRCTC has categorically expressed a view by interpreting the clauses of the tender document. The tendering authority interprets the Integrity Pact as the requirement for disclosure of corruption cases registered against a bidder in respect of any other company or the public sector undertaking in the last three years. The learned Single Bench was right in holding that the authors of the document in their wisdom have laid down certain clauses, which a b