SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
M-Tech Innovations – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 14695 of 2021 with Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratik Y. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Government Pleader with Mr. Chintan Dave, AGP.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nandish Chudgar with Mr. Bhavesh B. Chokshi

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2019 - Rules 16(1), 16(2) and 48 – Equality before law – Interim relief - Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Transport issued Request For Proposal (RFP), i.e. tender for selection of service provider for centralised issuance of Driving Licences in form of laminated card type without a chip prescribing last date for submission of queries and date for pre-bid meeting was scheduled to be held and last date for online submission of bid and opening of technical bid was scheduled to be held said process was scrapped which was intimated to all bidders vide communication (Annexure-G) which is under challenge in this petition and further direction is sought to quash fresh tender bearing RFP (Annexure-B) called for and restoration of first tender is sought for with a prayer to conclude same by undertaking requisite formalities including allotment of contract – Whether to enter into a contract with a person or not subject only to requirement of reasonableness under Article 14 of Constitution of India - Held, It is only decision making process if found to be flawed which would be interfered by judicial review and not decision by itself - Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance - If decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest and not being tainted with malafides, Courts would refuse to exercise power of judicial review even if there are minor procedural abrasion or error - If State or its instrumentalities have acted reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by Court would be restricted and normally Court should not interfere with policy decisions - Petitioner having participated and being unsuccessful cannot now turn around and take a stand to assail process of tender as being flawed - In fact, third respondent had also pursued his grievance by filing Special Civil Application before this Court challenging very disqualification on technical ground and during pendency of said Special Civil Application, a decision had been taken by State to scrap tender and issue fresh tender process, which resulted in withdrawing of Special Civil Application - Special Civil Application stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Transport issued Request For Proposal (RFP), i.e. tender for selection of service provider for centralised issuance of Driving Licences in the form of laminated card type without a chip on 25.06.2021 prescribing last date for submission of queries as 01.07.2021 and the date for pre-bid meeting was scheduled to be held on 05.07.2021 and the last date for online submission of bid was 28.07.2021 and opening of the technical bid was scheduled to be held on 02.08.2021. The said process was scrapped which was intimated to all the bidders vide communication dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-G) which is under challenge in this petition and further direction is sought to quash the fresh tender bearing RFP No.480749 (Annexure-B) called for and restoration of the first tender is sought for with a prayer to conclude the same by undertaking the requisite formalities including allotment of contract.

2. Brief background of the case:

    2.1 The Commissioner of Transport - respondent No.2 issued Request For Proposal (RFP), i.e. tender for selection of service provider for centralised issuance of Driving Licences in the form of laminated card without chip. The said tender was divided into four parts, wherein the conditions and obligations between the parties as well as respondent No.2 were crystallised. The eligibility criterion to be made by prospective bidders, inter alia, was that the card material shall be having composition of 60% Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) and 40% Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) used for card body and top polyester patch of 1 mil (minimum) to be applied above thermal printing layer for durability of printing. The Schedule of dates fixed for the purpose of Tender No.469145-RFP are as under:

25/06/2021 Date of issue of Tender Document 01/07/2021 Last Date of Submission of Queries 05/07/2021 Date of Pre-Bid Meeting 28/07/2021 Last date of online Submission of Bid 29/07/2021 Last date of Physical Submission of Bid 30/07/2021 Opening of Technical Bid 19/08/2021 Opening of Financial Bid 2.2 For Tender ID No.48079, the following dates were fixed :

07/09/2021 Date of issue of Tender Document 13/09/2021 Last Date of Submission of Queries 15/09/2021 Date of Pre-Bid Meeting 29/09/2021 Last date of online Submission of Bid 30/09/2021 Last date of Physical Submission of Bid 01/10/2021 Opening of Technical Bid 14/10/2021 Opening of Financial Bid 14/10/2021 Proposal for DPC/SPC to department of Ports and Transport. A copy of the said proposal is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R4.

2.3 Petitioner submitted its online bid enclosing unconditional bank guarantee having validity of 9 months for an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and also paid non-refundable bid processing fee of Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner claims to have met all the specified criteria and the technical bid was opened and petitioner was allowed to participate in the financial bidding. Petitioner forwarded a communication dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure-E) to respondent No.2 apprising that it would be difficult to get the exact composition of 60:40% with respect to PET:PVC without any variation and as such sought for addendum to Clause 32 being issued. In all, there were 8 bidders including petitioner, out of which 1 bidder was technically disqualified and financial bids of 7 companies came to be opened. Petitioner was declared as L1.

2.4 Petitioner is said to have approached respondent No.2 for execution of the final contract. On account of there being no progress in execution of the contract, petitioner is said to have approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 on several occasions. Petitioner received a communication dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-G) from respondent No.1 intimating petitioner and others that the tender bearing RFP No.469145 had been scrapped and the authority had decided to re-publish the same with revised provision on the ground

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top