Judicial review of tendering decisions is limited to assessing legality, with courts refraining from substituting the tender authority's decisions unless in cases of illegality or manifest arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking quashing of communication dated 13.10.2022 issued by Government of NCT Delhi (GNCTD), i.e. Respondent No.1, whereby the bid of the Petitioner for Tender No. 18/SE/South Circle/PWD/2022-2023 for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of Audio Video Conferencing System at VWDC, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, was rejected.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petitions are as under:

a) It is stated that the tender in question was floated by Respondent No.1 on 20.09.2022 with the last date and time of submission of technical bid, original Earnest Deposit Money (EMD), copy of receipt for original EMD and other documents as specified in the Press Notice being 28.09.2022 upto 15:00 hrs. The eligibility criteria for a bidder to participate in a bid is as follows:

"Eligibility criteria:

Bidder satisfying following criteria shall be eligible for participating in the bid.

(A) Manufacturer/OEM's and their authorized dealers of specified makes in NIT.

(B) Registered contractors of CPWD-Registration in appropriate class in B & R Category and having association with the OEMs/Authorized dealer of specified makes in NIT.

(C) Other agencies, who fulfill the eligibility criteria/requirements shall be eligible to apply. Joint Ventures are not accepted. Those agencies of appropriate list of MES, BSNL and other state Govt. Departments dealing with buildings and roads and other experienced contractors who satisfy the criteria of execution of similar works i.e. 3 no. works each of value not less than 53,30,414/- or 2 no. Works each of value not less than 79,95,622/- or 1 no. work of value not less than 1,06,60,829/- of the estimated cost put to bid and having association with OEM/authorized dealer as specified makes in NIT from the last 7 years ending previous month for the following through e-procurement solution, the value of executed work shall be brought to current costing level by enhancing the actural value of work at simple rate of 7% per annum, calculated from the date of completion of the last date of receipt of application for tender

"Similar works means-SITC of Audio Video Conferencing System" which all be received by `E-Tendering upto 15:00 on 28.09.2022 for the work."

b) It is stated that the Petitioner, on perusing the technical specifications, was of the view that the specifications were tailored to suit a specific tenderer and that other Original Equipment Manufacturers would not qualify. Accordingly, the Petitioner, vide letter dated 23.09.2022, highlighted the irregularities in the tender document and stated that the specification should be in accordance with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines in order to allow for better competition. The letter further noted that Indian makers for tendered items should also be considered under the Make in India Policy.

c) Another letter dated 24.09.2022 was issued by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1, reiterating the contents of letter dated 23.09.2022 and requesting to add equivalent makes for better competition as well as to extend the due date of the tender for further 7 working days from the date of amendment. Vide letter dated 26.09.2022, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry forwarded the grievances of the Petitioner to Chief Secretary, Delhi Government, and requested for the terms of the tender document to be reviewed in furtherance of the objective to promote Indian manufacturers. Consequently, an amended tender being 2nd Call 18/SE/South Circle/PWD/2022 was floated on 30.09.2022.

d) It is stated that, however, Respondent No.1 did not carry out any amendments with regard to the technical specifications or inclusion of Indian makers. The amendment was solely limited to the extension of the bid submission date and the bid opening date. Therefore, vide letter dated 01.10.2022, the Petitioner yet again intimated to Respondent No.1 that