Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J.
Janmitram Kalyan Samiti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 3207 of 2021
Decided on : 21-06-2024
TENDER PROCESS - MINING OPERATIONS - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015, Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2015 - The court discussed the essential requisites for eligibility/participation in the tender process, particularly the turnover condition, and the evaluation process. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to essential conditions and the discretion of the tendering authority in interpreting its own terms and conditions. The court emphasized the need for restraint in exercising judicial review in contractual matters and the public duty to be fair to all concerned in the award of contracts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Non-Government Organization, challenged the award of a tender for mining-related operations to respondent No. 3, alleging that the respondent did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and that the tendering authority acted in a malafide and discriminatory manner. The petitioner contended that the respondent's bid did not comply with the turnover condition and that the tender evaluation committee acted unreasonably in awarding marks to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for restraint in exercising judicial review in contractual matters and the public duty to be fair to all concerned in the award of contracts. The court held that the petitioner's challenge did not warrant interference, especially in the absence of gross arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias. The court also noted the completion of the first phase of the work by the respondent and the payments made, indicating that the matter was not suitable for intervention at that stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for restraint in exercising judicial review in contractual matters and the public duty to be fair to all concerned in the award of contracts. The court held that the petitioner's challenge did not warrant interference, especially in the absence of gross arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias. The court also noted the completion of the first phase of the work by the respondent and the payments made, indicating that the matter was not suitable for intervention at that stage.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner's challenge did not warrant interference, especially in the absence of gross arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias. The court also noted the completion of the first phase of the work by the respondent and the payments made, indicating that the matter was not suitable for intervention at that stage.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue, directing the respondent authorities to reject the bid of respondent No. 3 after declaring the respondent No. 3 disqualified/ineligible and be further pleased to quash the consequent work order dated 09.02.2021, being rendered unresponsive because of aforesaid disqualification/ineligibility in technical evaluation.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authorities to award the contract to the petitioner for the fact of being the lowest Bidder in final score after disqualification of the respondent no.3.
10.4 Cost of the proceedings.
10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed it and just in the facts & circumstances of case.”
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a Non-Government Organization (for short, the NGO) registered under the relevant provisions of Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act with NGO Unique Registration ID 0838 dated 31.10.2002 and providing services in the State of Chhattisgarh for the past 19 years and present petition is being filed. through its President. The respondent No. 2 is established by the State Government of Chhattisgarh by notification as a trust/non-profit perpetual body in the mining operation affected district of Janjgir-Champa, to work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining related operations. It is funded through the contribution from miners and derive its legal status from section 9B of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 read with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2015 and is fully controlled by the Government of Chhattisgarh and situated in the State of Chhattisgarh, and as such comes within the purview of the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such fully amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Vide letter dated 616/DMF/Ji.Pan./2020 dated 11.08.2020, the respondent No.2 has invited bids for preparation of a master plan/vision document for the works relating to identification of mining affected area/persons (direct or indirect), necessary survey, supervision of projects and social audits thereof.
3. A perusal of the tender document would show that the salient features of the tender process is that the bids were to be submitted in two folders, one being the technical proposal and other being the financial proposal, with 70% weightage was to be awarded to the technical evaluation and 30% weightage to the financial evaluation. The essentials requisite/conditions for eligibility/participation in the tender were provided in page 1/condition 1 of the NIT which was sub-divided in five parts/conditions. For the purpose of the instant petition, the petitioner relies upon the part/condition No. 5 mentioned therein, which is with respect of Turnover. The above condition shows that for eligibility/participation, a participant must have received an average of amount of Rs. 10 Lakh Turnover 'from consultancy' in the past three years i.e. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and to substantiate the above, the essential documents which were required to be submitted to substantiate the above was (a) copy of the Average Annual Turn Over issued by a Competent Authority/qualified Chartered Accountant, (b) copy of statement issued by a Competent Authority/Chartered Accountant, showing the total Consultancy Turn Over with regard to past three years.
4. The petitioner-institution has submitted its tender strictly in conformity with the terms and conditions of the tender along with supporting documents as required, especially the docum
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.
The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent decision-making in tender evaluations, asserting judicial review is warranted when actions of administrative bodies exhibit arbitrariness b....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The evaluation of tender bids must comply strictly with the qualifications defined in the tender, and any deviation or submission of erroneous documents leads to disqualification.
The court emphasized the importance of restraint and caution in exercising judicial review in contractual matters, and highlighted the authority's discretion in interpreting tender terms and conditio....
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
