Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Jagtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5454 of 2023 and C.M. Appls. 21332 of 2023 & 21333 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Tender - Parking Site - [Delhi Maintenance and Management of Parking Places Rules, 2019, Master Plan and IRC:SP 12:2015] - The court discussed the tender process for the parking site, the cancellation of the corrigendum tender, and the award of the contract. It highlighted the legal principles governing tender matters, including the authority's right to modify or cancel the tender, the limited scope of interference by the court, and the requirement of fairness and non-arbitrariness in tender actions. The court emphasized that the decision-making process must be fair, transparent, and not arbitrary, and interference by the court is restricted unless there is evidence of mala fides, intention to favor someone, or irrationality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the e-Tender for allotment of authorized parking sites, including the truck parking site at Timarpur. The petitioner also sought to open the technical and financial bid of a corrigendum for the same parking site. The respondent awarded the tender to another party, leading to disputes and subsequent tender modifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the corrigendum tender and the award of the contract were within the authority's rights. It emphasized the limited scope of interference by the court in tender matters and concluded that the decision-making process was fair and transparent. The court also noted that the petitioner's decision not to participate in the tender precluded them from challenging the process.
Issues: Challenge to e-Tender and corrigendum, award of contract, cancellation of corrigendum, and the authority's right to modify or cancel the tender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles governing tender matters, including the authority's right to modify or cancel the tender, the limited scope of interference by the court, and the requirement of fairness and non-arbitrariness in tender actions.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the Writ Petition and dismissed it, along with any pending applications.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks to challenge the e- Tender, being No. AC/RPC/MCD/2023/D-230, dated 17.04.2023, issued by the Respondent herein for allotment of authorized parking sites falling under the jurisdiction of NDMC, including the truck parking site at Timarpur (hereinafter referred to as `the site in question'). The Petitioner also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent herein to open the technical and financial bid of corrigendum dated 11.04.2022 being DC/RP CELL/NDMC/2022/D-44 with respect to the very same parking site. The Petitioner also seeks for an order restraining the Respondent herein from opening the technical bids of the site in question on 03.05.2023.
2. The facts of the case reveal that on 09.10.2020 the Respondent/Corporation floated a tender, being No. ADC/RPC/NDMC/2020/D-197, for allotment of various parking sites which also included the site in question, admeasuring 42667.85 SqM with parking capacity of 38215.62 SqM for parking of 125 trucks and 25 four wheelers. It is stated that the Petitioner was interested in placing his bid for the site in question but was unable to do so because of some technical glitch in the website of the Respondent/Corporation. It is stated that, thereafter, the Petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 10170/2020 seeking an order restraining the Respondent herein from proceeding ahead with opening of financial bids in respect of the parking site in question. On 15.12.2020, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the Petitioner herein by staying the opening of financial bid in respect of the parking site in question. Vide Order dated 02.08.2021 the aforementioned Writ Petition was disposed of. It is stated that the said Order was challenged by the Petitioner in the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.12652/2021. The said SLP has been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 23.08.2021.
3. It is stated that in September 2021, Respondent herein awarded the tender of the site in question to one Sanjay Yadav. Material on record discloses that Sanjay Yadav had disputes with the Respondent herein primarily on the ground that the area that was handed-over to him was less than the area for which he placed his bid as the said area is under the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the DDA'), which is the land owning agency and a much lesser area was handed over to the Respondent. It is stated that only an area of 5005 SqM was handed over.
4. It is stated that the Respondent herein vide corrigendum dated 11.04.2022, bearing No. DC/RP CELL/NDMC/2022/D-44, invited fresh bids for the site in question by reducing its area to 5005 SqM with parking capacity of 57 Trucks only. It is stated that the Petitioner herein placed his bid for this tender (hereinafter referred to as `the corrigendum tender.).
5. It is stated that Sanjay Yadav, who was already operating the site in question, approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 6323/2022 which was dismissed by Order dated 29.04.2022 on the ground that the Petitioner therein was trying to enforce the contract which could not be done in writ proceedings. Thereafter, an appeal, being LPA No.294/2022 was filed by Sanjay Yadav against the order dated 29.04.2022.
6. It is stated that though there was no stay, the Respondent herein did not open the bids for the corrigendum tender despite multiple requests of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that on 17.03.2023, the Petitioner herein moved an application for impleading himself as a party in LPA No.294/2022. The said LPA was finally heard and Orders were reserved on 21.03.2023.
7. It is stated that despite this Court reserving Orders in LPA No.294/2022, the Corporation floated fresh tender being No. AC/RPC/MCD/2023/D-230, dated 17.04.2023, (hereinafter referred to as `tender in question') and the parking sites on offer included the site in question with total area of
AI
The decision-making process in tender matters must be fair, transparent, and not arbitrary, and interference by the court is restricted unless there is evidence of mala fides, intention to favor some....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in tender/contractual matters, emphasizing that courts cannot rewrite contracts and that the remedy for contra....
The court affirmed that the state’s discretion in amending tender conditions is valid if it serves public interest, and a petitioner does not hold a vested right to lease renewal under changing condi....
The tendering authority can cancel a tender for a single bidder if it serves public interest by ensuring greater competition.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The powers of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to carry out the process of re-valuation of the marks granted by experts after considering various technical aspect....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
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
