IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, JJ.
Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deendayal Port Trust (Formerly Known As Kandla Port Trust) – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 20161 of 2021 With Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2022
Decided on : 05-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed to challenge disqualification decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegation of unfair disqualification without reasons. (Para 3 , 10) |
| 3. clarification on entity status of respondent. (Para 5 , 22) |
| 4. details on the two-stage bidding process outlined. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. arguments citing lack of reasons for disqualification. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. judicial review requires reasoned decisions. (Para 53 , 54) |
| 7. order to quash disqualification and direct fresh evaluation. (Para 61) |
| 8. final resolution and directions for fresh decision on disqualification. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
ORDER :
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for quashing and for setting aside the decision of respondent Deen Dayal Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as “Port Trust” for sake of brevity) dated 24.12.2021, conveyed to petitioners vide communication letter No. MS/WK/4030-V-PPP (PT.1)/GIM-546 (Annexure-A).
2. By the aforesaid decision, the respondent Port Trust authority has disqualified the petitioner No.1 from participating as bidder in the second stage of bidding process for development of Mechanized Fertilizer and other Clean Cargo Handling Facilities at Berth No.14 on Design, Build, Operate and Transfer Basis (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Project’).
3. The main ground amongst others on which the decision is assailed in the present proceedings is that respondent has not assigned any reason for disqualifying the petitioner No.1 and as such, the impugned decision is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The averments made in the Special Civil Application by the writ petitioners are as under:
4. Petitioner No.1 is Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is the largest commercial port operator in India and has presence across 13 domestic ports in seven maritime States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. Petitioner No.2 is a shareholder of petitioner No.1 and is a citizen of India, hence has got fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.
5. The respondent is a Port Trust (previously known as ‘’Kandla Port Trust’) and is a Board within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT , 1963. The Board of Trustees of the respondent has been constituted by the Central Government as per the provisions of the said Statute and as such, is a ‘State’ within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
6. In July 2021, the respondent issued a notice inviting tender for the said project and by way of a Request for Qualification (in short, ‘RFQ’), applications were invited from interested parties in order to pre-qualify the competent applicants who can subsequently bid for the said project. Request for Proposal (‘RFP’) documents to be made available only to pre-qualified applicants and as such, according to the petitioner, the tender process initiated by the respondent is in two stages, namely:
(b) Bidding stage (RFP Stage).
Pursuant to the said process, steps are prescribed as under:-
(a) Queries to be raised on or before 25.8.2021,
(b) Pre-application Conference held on 1.9.2021, and
(c) Response to the queries given by the respondent on 4.9.2021.
7. Petitioner No.1 submitted its application for prequalification on 13.9.2021 as per the requirement of RFQ. The same was within the last date prescribed under RFQ for prequalification, which was 14.9.2021. The said application was accompanied by all necessary particulars/documents. The respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner No.1 informing that it was in the process of evaluating the petitioner No.1’s application, some particulars/clarifications as required, are requested to be submitted vide letter dated 8.10.
APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756 (Para 36 and 37)
D.N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary
M/s Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd.
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others Vs. Union of India and others
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.