The rejection of a tender should be based on the stipulations outlined in the tender notice, and the discretion to accept or reject bids should be exercised at the appropriate stage of the evaluation process.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Delhi University (hereafter mentioned as “University”). It is agreed by the counsel for the parties that the matter can be heard finally.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its tender offering security services to the respondent/University. The tender was issued on 14.09.2017 inviting bids from interesting parties through the e-procurement system to provide round the clock security services in the University’s North Campus. The petitioner, a security agency, lodged its bid. It argues that the tenders were compliant with the conditions stipulated in the notice inviting tender (“NIT”). On 01.12.2017, the University informed the petitioner that it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and, therefore, disqualified the tender. The University relied upon Rule 151 (i) of the General Financial Rules, 2017 which according to it barred the petitioner from bidding or offering to work in the University. It is stated that the petitioner represented twice - on 09.12.2017 and 18.12.2017 against the move to reject its bid but to no avail, since these representations were rejected on 27.12.2017. The University’s position in all these representations consistently were that the petitioner was named as an accused for offences in a First Information Report (“FIR”) lodged on 24.10.2017 alleging that it had committed offences punishable under Section 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with provisions of the Employees Provident Fund (and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951.

3. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the University’s orders rejecting the tender are untenable and contrary to the tender’s stipulations. He relies particularly on clause 3 (which spelt out the mandatory eligibility conditions) and clause 6 (which outlines the procedure to be followed for opening of financial bid and its evaluation). It is contended that the disqualifying criteria relied upon by the University, i.e. GFR-151 reads as follows:-

“151 (i) A bidder shall be debarred if he has been convicted of an offence:-

(a) Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(b) The Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force, for causing any loss of life or property or causing a threat to public health as part of execution of a public procurement contract.”

4. It is contended that mere registration of FIR, cannot automatically result in disqualification of the petitioner’s bid, especially since the offences alleged are of a general nature and there is no definitive finding. It is also contended that the NIT itself does not refer to or incorporate the GFR conditions. In the absence of these, it is submitted that the petitioner’s bid should be entertained and duly evaluated before passing any order.

5. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University highlights that Clauses 6.02 and Instructions to Bidders, especially Clause-7, armed the University with sufficient discretion to either entertain and proceed to evaluate at the financial bid opening stage or reject at the prior stage, any bid. The said condition - Clause-7 reads as follows:-

“7. The University of Delhi in public interest reserves right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason and also to impose/relax any of the terms and conditions of the tender.”

6. Counsel also relies upon the University’s letter rejecting the petitioner’s representations which reads as follows:-

“Dear Sir,

Kindly refer to your representation dated 09.12.2017 w.r.t. Technical Disqualification for hiring of Security Services in University of Delhi.

In this regard, I am to inform you that the Committee considered your representation and accordingly it has been decided that the submissions made as such are mere circumventing and same do not establish the credibility beyond doubt, which is a necessity, considering the University deals with education o