Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, JJ.
Bal Vikas Sewa Sansthan (Regd.) - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Edu., GNCTD & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12370 of 2019 and C.M. No. 50612 of 2019
Decided On : 25-11-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.C. Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Arun Kamal, SO, DOE, GNCTD.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicial restraint in administrative action and the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes, emphasizing that interference is only permissible in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Headnote:
Exemption - Tender Process - W.P.(C) No.12370/2019 - Renaissance Distilleries and Breweries Ltd Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2007) 145 DLT 795, Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Another (2016) 16 SCC 818 - The court discussed the tender process, judicial review, and principles of administrative action. It highlighted the importance of not challenging the tender terms after participation, the need for judicial restraint, and the freedom of contract for the government. The court emphasized that interference in the decision-making process is only permissible in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in a tender process for the supply of hot cooked meals but was declared non-responsive. The petitioner challenged the decision, alleging unfair treatment and seeking judicial review.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender process was rational and informed, with no arbitrariness or bias. It concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the respondents and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Unfair treatment in the tender process, judicial review of administrative decisions, and the petitioner's failure to demonstrate mala fides on the part of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in administrative action and the freedom of contract for the government. It highlighted that interference in the decision-making process is only permissible in cases of mala fide or arbitrariness.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the court stating that if the petitioner makes a representation for 'value addition' as referred to in the tender conditions, the respondents will consider the case sympathetically.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. SISTANI, J.
C.M. No.50613/2019 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.12370/2019
Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted.
2. Mr. Satyakam, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents enters appearance. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is set-down for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the respondents had floated a Request For Proposal (RFP) on 25.09.2018, inviting bids for supply of hot cooked meal from independent decentralized semi-automatic kitchens having prescribed infrastructure, as per prescribed terms and conditions. Reliance is placed on the following criteria which we reproduce below:-
“That the selection process involved following stages:-
(a) Short listing of eligible candidate (Pre-Qualification Criteria)
(b) Inspection-covering 55 marks out of total 100 marks. 30 Marks are for external aspects of kitchen and 25 marks are for internal aspects of kitchen. The marks are therefore based on kitchen and not on other aspects of the applicant NGO. And,
(c) Evaluation of Technical Criteria. The remaining 45 marks are for following items pertaining to the NGO- as distinguished from aspects pertaining to Kitchen.
20 Marks for Financial Capacity and Experience
5 Marks for Clean track record regarding no penalty/penal action by GNCTD
5 Marks for Man Power and Record keeping
5 Marks for Quality certification from any government Agency
10 Marks for Value Addition beyond Government Funding”
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in the RFP documents, however, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner’s bid has been declared to be non-responsive; and out of 59 kitchens, only 34 kitchens have been selected.
5. Mr. Satyakam, counsel appearing for the respondents has handed-over in court Minutes of Meeting of the bid/RFP Opening, Advisory-cum-Assistance Committee held on 27.09.2019 for evaluation of reports of 03 Inspection Committees and submission of final recommendations for engagement/empanelment of NGOs/Voluntary organizations for the supply of mid day meals. It is pointed-out that this committee comprises the following members:
| Sl. No. | Name | Chairperson/Member |
| i. | Special Director of Education (Admin) | Chairperson |
| ii. | Deputy Director of Education (MDM) | Member |
| iii. | Deputy Controller of Accounts (North) | Member |
| iv. | Assistant Director of Education (MDM) | Member |
| v. | Sr. Accounts Officer (CTB) | Member |
| vi. | Section Officer (MDM) | Member |
| vii. | AO/AAO (MDM) | Member |
6. He points-out that the committee had initially submitted its recommendations on 18.09.2019 which were placed before the Director of Education; and the Director of Education had made the following observations:-
“I have gone through the material on record. It has been proposed to empanel 33 Service Providers/NGOs perhaps on the basis of existence of the kitchen. While RFP, as per my understanding stating empanelment of 30 organisations. Bid/RFP opening, Advisory cum Assistance Committee to please re-examine and submit.”
7. Thereafter a meeting was held on 27.09.2019 in the chamber of Special DE (Administration) to examine/review the earlier recommendations. While relying on the aforesaid minutes counsel for the respondents submits that the matter was re-examined carefully. The entire chart prepared by the 3 inspection committees has also been handed-over in the court, indicating the columns and the marks awarded to the bidders. It is also submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he was awarded a total of 57 out of 100 marks. This
