Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Univabs Sleepers Private Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ministry Of Railway & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2869 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 3084 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2021
Writ petitions challenging the tender conditions for establishing a dedicated manufacturing plant nearby project site for East-West Rail Corridor and East Rail Corridor-II of Chhattisgarh Railway Project, for manufacturing, supply and transportation of mono block sleeper as per specification given in Tender No. IRCON/2059/CGRP/e-TENDER/SLEEPERS-CSP/20-21, are dismissed. The court held that the tender condition was not arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, or actuated by bias. The court also held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches in filing the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are leading rail infrastructure companies, engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying Pre-Stressed Concrete (PSC) sleepers. The petitioners have already obtained the Research Design and Standards Organisation (hereinafter referred to as RDSO) approval and are supplying sleepers for last several years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tender condition was not arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, or actuated by bias. The court also held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches in filing the petitions.
Issues: Whether the tender condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, or actuated by bias.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tender condition was not arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, or actuated by bias. The court also held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches in filing the petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are dismissed. The court also held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches in filing the petitions.
Judgment
Jasmeet Singh, J. - In WP(C) 2869/2021 & 3084/2021 (COMMON GROUNDS):
The present writ petitions have been filed and raise somewhat similar questions and hence are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
1. The writ petitions have been filed seeking the following substantive prayers respectively:
Prayer in WP(C) 2869/2021
a. Quash/ Direct the Respondent No. 2 to quash the impugned conditions of the tender and result of technical bid which qualify only one Company in the technical bid of the tender for establishing dedicated manufacturing plant nearby project site for East-West Rail Corridor and East Rail Corridor-II of Chhattisgarh Railway Project, for manufacturing, supply and transportation of mono block sleeper as per specification given in Tender No. ! IRCON/2059/CGRP/e-TENDER/SLEEPERS-CSP/20-2I and petitioner be permitted to submit/ participate its bid without the requirement of establishing dedicated manufacturing plant in the State of Chhattisgarh;
b. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to follow the guidelines/ instruction/ decision of respondent No. I;
c. Restrain the Respondent No. 2 from opening the financial bid/ awarding contract to only one company till the pendency of the case;
d. If the contract is awarded by Respondent No. 2 then cancel/ quash the same.
e. Ex-parte order in terms of prayer herein above.
- AND -
Prayer in WP(C) 3084/2021
a. Quash/ Direct the respondent No. 2 to quash the impugned conditions of the tender and result of technical bid which qualify only one Company in the technical bid of the tender for establishing dedicated manufacturing plant nearby project site for East-West Rail Corridor and East Rail Corridor-II of Chhattisgarh Railway Project, for manufacturing, supply and transportation of mono block sleeper as per specification given in Tender No. IRCON/2059/CGRP/e-TENDER/SLEEPERS-CSP/20-21 and petitioner be permitted to submit/ participate its bid without the requirement of establishing dedicated manufacturing plant in the State of Chhattisgarh;.
b. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to follow the guidelines/ instruction/ decision of Respondent No. 1;
c. Restrain the Respondent No. 2 from opening the financial bid/ awarding contract to only one company till the pendency of the case;
d. If the contract is awarded by Respondent No. 2 then cancel/ quash the same.
e. Ex-parte order in terms of prayer herein above.
2. In WP(C) 2869/2021 and WP(C) 3084/2021, the Petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are leading rail infrastructure companies, engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying Pre-Stressed Concrete (PSC) sleepers. The Petitioners have already obtained the Research Design and Standards Organisation (hereinafter referred to as RDSO) approval and are supplying sleepers for last several years.
3. The Respondent No.l in both the petitions is the Union of India, Ministry of Railways.
4. Respondent No.2, IRCON International Ltd. is a Government company incorporated by Central Government (Ministry of Railways) under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a leading turnkey construction company in public sector. 86 % of the shares of Respondent No.2 are held by Respondent No. 1.
5. Respondent No.3 i.e. Chhattisgarh East West Railway Ltd. is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed by South Eastern Coal fields Limited, Respondent No.2, and Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. for the purpose of construction of rail lines to evacuate increased quantity of coal from Chhattisgarh and to develop East West Rail Corridor and East Rail Corridor-II. The shareholding pattern of Respondent No. 3 comprises as under:-
a. South Eastern Coalfields Limited - 64%;
b. Respondent No.2 i.e. IRCON International Ltd. - 26%
c. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. -10%."
6. Respondent No.2 on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 has invited tender for manufacture, suppl
AI
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
The formulation of tender conditions falls within the administrative domain of the authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or favoritism. The courts cannot interfere wit....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
The court affirmed that tender conditions set by authorities are subject to limited judicial review, focusing on their reasonableness and adherence to statutory provisions.
The court affirmed that stringent eligibility criteria in public tender processes cannot violate statutory relaxations for Start-ups, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
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
