Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 2182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, VIPIN SANGHI, JJ
CGMP Projects Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Food Safety And Standards Authority Of India And Another - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7105 of 2022
Decided on : 02-06-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. H.M. Mukherjee and Mr. K. Bhimraj Achary, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Mr. Suransh Chaudhary, Mr. Sushaar Chaudhary, Mr. Vijay and Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocates
The terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract, and technical evaluation by expert committees should not be second-guessed by a writ Court.
Headnote:
Tender Evaluation - Technical Compliance - Constitution of India, Code of Civil Procedure - 1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Respondent to withdraw the findings against the Petitioner and to consider the Petitioner's representation and documents. The petitioner's bid was found technically compliant, but later found ineligible due to deficiencies in the technical compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had taken different pleas at various stages of the proceedings and sought to elongate the tender process. The court noted that the respondent had been accommodating in considering the belated information/documents submitted by the petitioner and conducting another detailed evaluation of the petitioner’s instruments. The court dismissed the petition with costs payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Issues: The primary issue was the eligibility of the petitioner's bid based on technical compliance and the petitioner's request for further time to submit clarifications/information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract and that technical evaluation by expert committees should not be second-guessed by a writ Court. The court also highlighted the rights of a tenderer participating in the tender process and the limited judicial review available in cases where the terms of the invitation to tender were tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with costs payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
W.P.(C) 7105/2022 and C.M. Appl. No. 21817/2022
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1980, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue writ of mandamus against the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Respondent directing them to withdraw the findings dated 22.04.2022 against the Petitioner and to consider the Petitioner's representation and documents;
(b) Direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to participate in the financial bidding”
2. The background in which the present petition has been filed is that respondents issued a request for RFP No. 04/2021-22 dated 07.01.2022 for setting up of Microbiology Section and Installation of Equipment on turnkey basis in 05 (five) regions across India, i.e., Eastern, North-Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern India. Bids were invited under two bid system, i.e., technical bid and commercial bid. As per the tender conditions, the technical bids are to be opened, first and commercial bids of only those firms will be opened whose technical bids were found complete after technical evaluation. A corrigendum was issued on 31.01.2022 making some changes in the specification of equipments in the RFP and extending the deadline for submission of bids.
3. The petitioner submitted its bid after which a meeting of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) was held on 12.04.2022. The TEC observed therein as under:-
“6. All the 8 bidders presented their strengths in similar work. Based on presentation, documents submitted along with the bid and interaction with the bidders, the recommendations of the committee w.r.t clause 7 (e) of the tender document is as under:
| S. No | Name of Bidder | Recommendation |
| (a) | M/s Asian Scientific Industries | Recommended |
| (b) | M/s 7 Steps Consultores Pvt. Ltd. –Lead M/s Syntec Airflow System Pvt.Ltd.- Consortium | Recommended |
| (c) | M/s G&G Empire India Services Pvt. Ltd. – Lead M/s Advait Imports Exports - Consortium | Not –Recommended (Reason –M/s G&G Empire India Services Pvt. Ltd, being the lead bidder, does not possess the work experience of similar nature i.e. setting up of Microbiology lab. Hence not meeting the requirements of Clause 6.4 a (ii) |
| (d) | M/s Auriga Research Pvt. Ltd. – Lead M/s Arbro Pharamasecuticals Pvt. Ltd. – Consortium | Recommended |
| (e) | M/s CGMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Lead M/s Beardsell Ltd. – Consortium | Recommended |
| (f) | M/s Lab Nation – Lead M/s Vasu Scientific Company - Consortium | Recommended |
| (g) | M/s MM Drugs & Pharma – Lead M/s Multitech Technofab Enterprises – Consortium M/s Dharma Trading Corporation – Consortium | Not –Recommended (Reason –M/s MM Drugs & Pharma, being the lead bidder, does not possess the work experience of similar nature i.e. setting up of Microbiology lab. Hence not meeting the requirements of Clause 6.4 a (ii) |
| (h) | M/s Pillar9 TAE India – Lead M/s Eagle Techsec Communications (I) Pvt Ltd.- Consortium M/s Gennext Scientific and IT Solutions – Consortium | Recommended |
4. On the basis of the above, it has been contended by the petitioner that its bid was found to be technically compliant by the tender evaluation committee and that it was wrong to thereafter find the Petitioner ineligible.
5. It is further pointed out that on 22.04.2022, another meeting of the Technical Evaluation Committee was held. Annexure III of the minutes of meeting dated 22.04.2022 contains a technical compliance statement of the eligible bidders. In the said statement, the following observations have been made with regard to technical compliance by various bidders, including the petitioner:-
6. The factual veracity of the above observations could not be disputed by learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is also admitted that the Petitioner was u
