Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
FTA HSRP Solutions Private Ltd. Through Its Director Kapil Kanaiyalal Popat S/o Kanaiyalal Popat - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Transport Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPC No. 809, 786 of 2022
Decided On : 24-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of petitions due to similar issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. rejection of bids based on eligibility criteria outlined in the ifb. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claim of qualifications and malafide intent in rejecting bids. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidences of competitive pricing and unfair advantages in the bidding process. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court’s observation on the bid evaluation and justification of the rejection. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. judicial restraint in administrative matters and evaluation criteria for tender. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. conclusion and affirmation of administrative integrity. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. final decision dismissing petitions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. principles of fair play and public interest in the context of tender evaluations. (Para 39 , 44) |
| 10. final dismissal of petitions with no costs awarded. (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Since the facts and issue involved in both the above writ petitions are similar, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner-FTA HSRP Solutions Private Ltd. in WPC No. 809/2022 has prayed for the following reliefs:
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ to quash and set aside the decision of the Respondent No.03 to reject the bid of the Petitioner pursuant to the invitation for Bids bearing Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 and the subsequent corrigendum, in the interest of justice.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to put on hold the execution of the Contracts with successful bidder and if the contracts have already been executed, to issue orders to stay all subsequent proceedings of the tender process.
10.4 That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.
10.5 That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner-Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in WPC No. 786/2022 has prayed for the following reliefs:
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 2 Authority to reject the Bid submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to the Invitation for Bids bearing Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021; and/or
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the e-mail dated 05.02.2022 whereby the Petitioner was informed about the rejection of the bid submitted by it pursuant to the Invitation for Bids bearing Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021; and/or
(iv) Pass such other Orders or Directions as it may deem fit.”
4. Both the petitions arise from invitation of bids bearing Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 and the subsequent corrigendum issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, for implementation of the project for assembling, establishing, procuring technology, designing, developing, producing, embossing, affixing and fittings of High Security Registration Plates (for short, the HSRPs) in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners in both the petitions are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in manufacturing, supplying and affixing HSRPs. The petitioners participated in the tender floated by the respondent- Transport Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. They are aggrieved by rejection of their bids. In WPC No. 809/2022, the petitioner came to know about the rejection of his bid from the portal of the Chhattisgarh
The eligibility criteria in tender processes necessitate demonstrable technical experience across multiple jurisdictions, and courts refrain from interfering with decisions based on alleged non-compl....
Judicial interference in the matter of tenders and contracts is limited and the court should exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision-making process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in tender conditions, emphasizing the authority of the tendering entity to interpret and appreciate its requir....
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
The court affirmed that the interpretation of tender conditions by the authority is paramount, and minor technical deficiencies do not justify judicial intervention.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness; courts should defer to the authority's interpretation of tender documents unless clear malafides or perversity are present.
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
