Tender evaluations by technical committees are not subject to routine judicial review; courts respect expert decisions unless demonstrably tainted by illegality or bias.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the Technical Evaluation Committee to reconsider its decision that found the petitioner ineligible for a tender bid due to perceived deficiencies in technical compliance. The court emphasized that the evaluation committee's decisions, especially given their expert nature, are not to be second-guessed in routine judicial review. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to tender specifications and affirmed a limited scope of judicial review in tender matters. (Paras 20-22)

(B) Tendering Process - Judicial Review - The court ruled that it cannot interfere with the technical evaluation by experts and affirmed that a petitioner’s right is limited to fair treatment and equality in bid evaluation. The judicial review is confined to ensuring the decision-making process is not tainted by illegality or bias. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner submitted a bid for a tender to set up a Microbiology Section but was rejected due to alleged non-compliance with technical specifications as determined by the Technical Evaluation Committee. The petitioner sought a review of this decision, asserting its bid was compliant. (Paras 1-4, 9-11)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's appeal, stating the Technical Evaluation Committee’s conclusions were based on valid assessment criteria, which the petitioner had failed to meet, reinforcing the integrity of the tendering process. (Paras 18-22)

Issues: The court addressed whether the Technical Evaluation Committee’s rejection of the petitioner’s bid was valid based on technical non-compliance and if the petitioner was entitled to further opportunity to submit clarifications. (Paras 7-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evaluation carried out by the Technical Evaluation Committee comprised experts whose decisions on compliance are to be respected, barring instances of illegalities or apparent biases, which were not present in this case. (Paras 18-23)

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000.

Table of Content
1. request for mandamus and bidding background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. tech evaluation complexities affect bidding eligibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. financial bidding and subsequent evaluations considered. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. discrepancies and procedural fairness in evaluation process. (Para 11 , 12)
5. all evaluations were adequately considered. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. judicial deference to technical committees emphasized. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. court's stance on evaluative authority in tenders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. conclusion and costs imposed on the petitioner. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. (Oral)

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 ArbroPharamasecuticals 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 Techno fab 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 22.04.20