The court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in contractual dealings of the state and stated that the terms of a tender are ordinarily not open to judicial review. The court also highlighted that the available data in the tender documents was sufficient for participation and dismissed the petitioner's claim of inadequate data for making a bid.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - Cm APPLs. 10871-10872/2020

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3129/2020 & CM APPL. 10870/2020

3. The present petition and the applications were taken up for hearing way of video conferencing, pursuant to urgent listing by the Registry.

4. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the second round of litigation, at instance of the Petitioner, relating to Notice Inviting Tender ("NIT") issued by South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC-Respondents) for engagement of a contractor for collection of toll and Environment Compensation Charges (ECC) at 124 border points from specified commercial vehicles entering Delhi. Petitioner had earlier approached this court by way of W.P (C) No.2995/2020, impugning the Notice Inviting Tender dated 6th April 2020 relating to the same subject matter. The said petition was dismissed by a detailed judgment dated 27th April 2020. Subsequent to the dismissal of the afore-noted petition, when the Respondents opened the bids, it transpired that only one bid had been received. As a consequence, the previous NIT has been cancelled and readvertised as NIT dated 28th April, 2020 with the last date for submission of bids being extended from 12th May, 2020 to 15th May, 2020 i.e. today. This fresh NIT is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Petitioner invokes the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court ostensibly aggrieved by inaction on part of the Respondents in responding to queries forwarded by it and its sister concerns in the pre-bid meeting and seeks appropriate directions to the Respondents to a) respond to such queries, b) to provide data to the Petitioner in order to allow it to make an informed bid, and c) to ensure site visit before the opening of the bid. In the interregnum, Petitioner seeks postponement of the tender to a future date and stay during the pendency of the present petition.

5. We heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondents at considerable length. Mr. Balbir Singh argued that pursuant to the previous round of litigation, when the bids were opened, Petitioner''s apprehensions came true as only one bid was received by the Respondent. This confirms that the conduct of the tender during the lockdown was counter-productive and did not lead to competitive bidding. The Respondents had to inevitably re-advertise the NIT. Petitioner has perused the terms and conditions of fresh NIT and taken all necessary steps for participation including attending a pre-bid meeting conducted on 2 nd May, 2020,followed by submission of representations dated 4 th May, 2020 and 8th May 2020 raising various queries. Respondents have till date miserably failed to give a cogent response thereto or provide the requisite information so as to enable the Petitioner to participate in the tender process. The pre-bid response dated 5th May, 2020 is vague and lacks essential and relevant details. Mr. Balbir Singh argued that the tender requires the bidder to bid for toll collection rights for 124 sites and such a bid can only be made after carefully going through the traffic data. The data provided by the Respondents is inadequate and the veracity thereof is also in doubt. In these circumstances, response to the queries raised by the Petitioner becomes essential, as paucity of information would not only undermine the Petitioner''s right to join the bidding process but would also discourage other bidders from participating therein. Elaborating on this submission, Mr. Balbir Singh highlighted that the tender quotes a reserve price for collection of toll at Rs. 636 crores. To the knowledge of Petitioner, the party presently holding the tender had quoted Rs. 1200 crores as its bid in the previous tender in 2016, where reserve price was similar to what has been quo