IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Top Edge Security And Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8903 of 2022 and C.M. Nos. 26760 of 2022 & 11415 of 2023 and W.P.(C) 9460 of 2022 and C.M. No. 28250 of 2022
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Tenders - Impugned Tenders - OM dated 17.12.2002 - Tenders dated 04.01.2022 - Order dated 01.06.2022 - GeM guidelines - Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt Ltd. v. Lady Hardinge Medical College & Ors. - Joint Ventures - W.P.(C) No. 8903 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 9460 of 2022
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the tenders issued by the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, for provision of security manpower services, citing arbitrary stipulations. The court considered the challenge to the marking criteria for tie-breaking and the exclusion of joint ventures from bidding.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contention that the stipulation pertaining to average annual turnover was arbitrary, emphasizing the prerogative of the tendering authority to prescribe the minimum average annual turnover. The court also upheld the exclusion of joint ventures from bidding, citing operational optimization and prevention of cartelization and monopolies.
Issues: Challenge to marking criteria for tie-breaking and exclusion of joint ventures from bidding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, deferring to the decision-making process of the tendering authority unless it is colored in mala fide or outrightly perverse. The court also highlighted the extant GeM guidelines allowing the tendering authority to devise its own criteria for tie-breaking.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.
JUDGMENT
1. By means of the instant Writ Petitions, the Petitioners herein have impugned the tenders issued by the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, i.e., the Respondent No. 2, vide bid numbers GEM/2022/B/2194834, GEM/2022/B/2195060, GEM/2022/B/2195292, GEM/2022/B/2195371, GEM/2022/B/2195447, GEM/B/2022/B/2195488, GEM/2022/B/2195541, GEM/2022/B/2195586, GEM/2022/B/2195734, GEM/2022/B/2195769 dated 20.05.2022(hereafter, "Impugned Tenders") for provision of security manpower services, on the basis that they contain certain arbitrary stipulations. Accordingly, it has been sought that this Court be pleased to call for records of the Impugned Tenders and consequently set them aside.
2. W.P.(C) No. 8903 of 2022 has been filed by Top Edge Security & Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter, "Top Edge") and W.P.(C) No. 9460 of 2022 has been filed by Good Year Security Service (R) (hereafter, "Good Year"). Since the substance of the Petitioners' challenge to the Impugned Tenders is identical, there being only slight differences in the factual matrices in the Petitions, we deem it appropriate to take W.P.(C) No. 8903 of 2022 as the lead matter for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts leading up to the filing of W.P(C) No. 8903/2022 is set out hereinbelow:
a. In response to complaints regarding discriminatory pre-qualification criteria incorporated in the tender documents by various departments, the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter, "CVC") issued an Office Memorandum on 17.12.2002 (hereafter, "OM dated 17.12.2002"). In terms of the OM dated 17.12.2002, the CVC inter alia provided:
"5. The following points must be kept in view while fixing the eligibility criteria:
A) For Civil/Electrical Works
i) Average Annual financial turnover during the last 3 years, ending 31st March of the previous financial year, should be at least30% of the estimated cost."
b. It has been stated before this Court that on previous instances, i.e., in January 2015, October 2019 and July 2020, Respondent No. 2 has issued tenders wherein the prequalification criterion required that the average annual financial turnover during a period of 3 years preceding the bid should be at least 30% of the estimated cost in line with the OM dated 17.12.2002. The said tenders also allowed for bidding by a consortium/joint venture.
c. On 04.01.2022, Respondent No. 2 issued a total of 10 tenders for the provision of security manpower services on the GeM Portal (hereafter, "Tenders dated 04.01.2022"). In terms of the Tenders dated 04.01.2022, the Annual Turnover criteria for the time period of three years preceding the bid, was enhanced from being equal to or more than 30% of the estimated costs of the bid to 50% of the estimated cost of the bid.
d. On 10.01.2022, Top Edge filed W.P.(C) No. 805 of 2022, challenging the Tenders dated 04.01.2022 inter alia based on the enhanced requirement for average annual turnover provided in the Tenders dated 04.01.2022.
e. On 19.01.2022, this Court directed the Respondents to produce the record of Tenders dated 04.01.2022 in the terms reproduced hereunder:
"We direct the respondents to positively produce the original record before us for our perusal on the next date. The Director of Education should also remain present to answer our queries when we take up the matter. We may also note that during the course of arguments on 17.01.2022, the reasoning advanced by Mr. Singh, on instructions, for raising the Average Annual Turn Over criteria from 30% to 50% of the estimated value of the work, was that, the lower bar of 30% was leading to bidding and selection of incompetent contractors, who are not able to service the contracts. However, there is not a whisper to this effect in the file notings placed before us.
We also find that the short note placed at pages 1 to 5 seeks to provide a justification for structuring the tenders in question, in the manner they have been structured, and the justifications provided therein are not to be found in the file noting
The tendering authority's decision should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Judicial review is permissible in tender matters only to prevent arbitrariness; criteria should ensure fairness and cannot favor specific bidders without rational basis.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The court established that significant deviations from tender guidelines and arbitrary evaluation criteria violate the principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness; courts should defer to the authority's interpretation of tender documents unless clear malafides or perversity are present.
Judicial review of tenders limited to arbitrariness or malafide; eligibility conditions upheld if public interest served with multiple qualified bidders; bid time reduction valid with approval; ineli....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.