The lowest bidder does not have a vested right to be awarded the contract, but the government instrumentality is bound to act reasonably and cannot be mala fide or arbitrary in its conduct.

ORDER

1. These two petitions have been preferred raising primarily the same issue, namely, that despite the petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder in the bidding process, the respondents have not awarded the contract to the petitioner, and are proceeding to cancel it and initiate the fresh tender process. Even when the matter, i.e. W.P.(C) 7923/2021 came up before this Court on 06.08.2021, we recorded the following order:-

"W.P.(C) 7923/2021 & CM APPL. Nos.24609/2021 & 24783/2021

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was found to be the L-1 Bidder in the previous round of bidding. Without assigning any reasons, and without even communicating the cancellation of the said tender, the respondents have now initiated a fresh tender on 04.08.2021. The last date for submission of the bids is 10.08.2021. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 06.09.2021. In the meantime, the respondents shall not open the bids in relation to the tender dated 04.08.2021."

2. The respondent moved C.M. No. 27411/2021 - for vacation of the stay order granted on previous date, which came up before the Court on 23.08.2021. Mr. Jetly - who appears for the respondent, stated that the said application may be read as the respondent's counter-affidavit in the writ petition. The matter was thereafter adjourned for today, i.e. 06.09.2021.

3. Today, we have heard the submissions of learned counsels. The primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have acted on the basis of an anonymous complaint, and it appears that even before the said anonymous complaint was received, the respondents had proceeded to act in terms thereof.

4. The application filed by the respondents, as aforesaid - which is also their counter-affidavit, is highly revealing and the same brings out a sordid state of affairs in the respondents' organization for which, it appears, the petitioner was also responsible. The respondents have disclosed that 47 Firms had tendered their bids in response to the tender in question. However, only 2 bidders were found to be qualified. These two bidders were M/s Professional Management Services and M/s Sunshine Enterprises-which is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Pertinently, these two firms are owned by Mrs. Savleen Kaur and Mr. Surinder Singh respectively - who are wife and husband. The respondents have also disclosed that M/s Sunshine Enterprises was operating the same contract between the period 2012-2017, and from 01.04.2018 till now the contract has been operated by M/s Professional Management Services.

5. In view of the advice of the MoD/Finance and in the light of the CVC Guidelines Criteria (PQC), the matter was examined whether the conditions in the tender were very stringent and restrictive.

6. We may take note of the office note of the Ministry of Defence (Finance) at this stage, which reads as follows:-

"Ministry of Defence (Finance)

Main Office

*****

Reference: Preceding Notes.

This relates to the proposal moved by O/o CAO seeking concurrence ofMoD (Fin.) to enter into fresh contract with L-1 firm having more experience in the field of providing services i.e. M/s Sunshine Enterprises, for hiring of Conservancy/ Sanitation Services through 176 Labourers, 03 Supervisor, Machinery and Cleaning Agents and Garbage Lifting & Disposal for regular cleanliness of toilets, corridors, open space of offices in Defence Buildings/Hutments Block including KG Marg and Africa Avenue located in Delhi for a period of one year with total financial implication of Rs.4,34,92,630.56/-on GeMportal.

2. The aforementioned proposal has been examined in MoD (Fin.) and it has been observed that in response to the bid published on GeM portal on 24 March, 2021 for the purpose, total 47 bidders participated in bidding. However, out of these 47 bidders, only two (02) bidders have been technically qualified. It appears that the technical specifications given in the bid were quite restrictive. It h