Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGH, JJ.
Montecarlo Limited and Another – Petitioners
Versus
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5127 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Tender Contract - Tender Notice - Rejection of technical Bid - Evaluation criteria prescribed in the Bid Document - Petitioner’s bid suffered from material deviations and hence stood disqualified - Mobilization and de-mobilization program of key personnel was not provided - whether the respondents have adopted a uniform procedure while dealing with the petitioner’s bid vis-a-vis other bidders.
Finding of the Court:
Party issuing the tender has a right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the contract and that the Court cannot substitute its view for that of the employers who have interpreted the terms of the bid document. However, the golden thread and the legal principles is that while interpreting the terms of the tender conditions, the respondents cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically and treat different bidders differently - Goalposts cannot be changed during the bid evaluation process to affect the right of some, or deny a privilege to some. The tender issuing authority could deviate from the terms and the conditions of the tender, but the same standards have to apply to all the bidders alike. So long as the “level playing field” is maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or discrimination, the conduct of the tender inviting authority may not be questioned.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.M. Application No. 17072/2021 - (EXEMPTION)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 5127 and C.M. Application Nos. 15722/2021 and 17071/2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to assail the rejection of its bid in relation to the Bid Package No. MAHSR-8 issued by the Respondent for the “Design and Construction of Civil and Building Work s for the Depot on Design Build Lump Sum Price Basis for Double Line High Speed Railway involving works for Site Formation, Abutment, Retaining Walls, Roadbed for track, Box Culvert, Roads, Cable Duct, Foundations of OHE Masts, Piping, Drainage, Water Supply, Water Harvesting, Fire Fighting, Land-scraping, Boundary Wall, General Inspection Train Shed, Maintenance Depot and other Associated Works at Sabarmati between MAHSR Km. 507.599 and MAHSR Km. 509. 726 in the State of Gujarat for the Project of Construction of Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail” (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”) at the technical stage, vide communication dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021. The petitioner also assails the Notification dated 28.04.2021 whereby the results of the Financial Bid Opening was notified. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider its bid for the aforesaid Package.
2. The case set up by the Petitioner No. 1 is that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of infrastructure, construction and development with operation diversified across highways, railways, buildings and factories, mining, energy, infrastructure etc. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of Petitioner No. 1. The Respondent, National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited has been incorporated with the object to finance, construct, maintain and manage the High upcoming Speed Rail Corridor in India, and is a “Special Purpose Vehicle” (SPV) with equity participation from the Central Government-through Ministry of Railways, Government of Gujarat and Government of Maharashtra.
3. The Respondent issued the Tender Notice on 22.10.2020 calling for bids from bidders for the Project. The timelines indicated and prescribed by the Respondent were as under:
(i) Bid Due Date (Online)-18.02.2021 up to 1500 hours.
(ii) Bid Due Date (Physical)-18.02.2021 up to 1500 Hours.
(iii) Bid Opening Date (Technical)-19.02.2021 at 1530 Hours.
(iv) Bid Opening Date (Financial)-28.04.2021 at 1100 hours.”
4. The Petitioner No. 1 submitted its bid in the prescribed manner on 18.02.2021 through the online portal and also in the physical format. In terms of the Bid Document, the evaluation of the bids were to be done in five stages as under:
| (i) | Stage 1 | Evaluation of Administrative Requirements |
| (ii) | Stage 2 | Evaluation of Compliance and Responsiveness |
| (iii) | Stage 3 | Evaluation of Compliance with the Qualification Requirements |
| (iv) | Stage 4 | Technical Evaluation |
| (v) | Stage 5 | Financial Evaluation |
5. The technical bids submitted by various bidders including the Petitioner, were opened on 19.02.2021 and on 27.04.2021, the Petitioner No. 1 received a communication informing it that is bid, along with that of 4 other bidders, were rejected at the technical stage. The Petitioner No. 1 wrote to the Respondent on 28.04.2021 seeking reasons for the rejection. The said letter was replied by the Respondent informing the Petitioner No. 1 that its bid was found to be “Non-Responsive.” The price bids of the qualified bidders were opened on 28.04.2021 and SCC-VRS (JV) was declared as the lowest bidder. It is this action of the Respondent which is under challenge before us.
6. Before proceeding further, at this stage itself, we may notice the reason disclosed by the respon
Contract Tender - Rejection of technical bid - While interpreting the terms of the tender conditions, the respondents cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically and treat different bidders differently.
Court ruled the rejection of a technical bid for using an authorized dealer's DSC was arbitrary as eligibility conditions were met, emphasizing fair competition in tender processes.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The decision-making process of the tendering authority should be respected unless there is mala fide or perversity, and the court should only interfere in tender matters in furtherance of public inte....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
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
