Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Umesh A. Trivedi, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, JJ.
BGR Deco Consortium – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3653 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2024
Tender Disqualification - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. - RFP document, NIT - The court dismissed the petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner from a tender process due to false representation in the forms and failure to meet the guidelines specified in the RFP document and NIT. The court held that the decision to disqualify the petitioner did not require a reasoned order and deferred to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer of the project. The petitioner's challenge was found to be meritless and the petition was dismissed with no order as to cost.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in a tender process for lignite mining contractors but was disqualified due to failure to meet the guidelines specified in the RFP document and NIT. The petitioner challenged the disqualification, claiming that it had fulfilled all qualification criteria and that the disqualification decision lacked reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's disqualification was justified due to false representation in the forms and failure to meet the guidelines specified in the tender documents. The court held that the decision to disqualify the petitioner did not require a reasoned order and deferred to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer of the project.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's disqualification from the tender process was justified and whether the decision required a reasoned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the decision to disqualify the petitioner did not require a reasoned order and deferred to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer of the project. The petitioner's challenge was found to be meritless.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner from the tender process was dismissed with no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for quashing impugned decision of the respondent dated 08.01.2024, whereby proposal of the petitioner pursuant to a Tender No. GMDC/TPD/007/23-24 for Lakhpath Lignite Block did not meet with the guidelines specified in the Request For Proposal (hereinafter referred to as “RFP document”, for short), held to be ineligible for further rounds and Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “EMD”, for short) submitted by the petitioner was told to be disbursed as per guidelines specified in the “RFP document”.
2. The respondent – Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GMDC”, for short) issued notice inviting tender and “RFP document” for seeking lignite mining contractors on turn-key basis at Kutch, on 02.08.2023.
2.1 Pursuant to the said tender notice, a pre-bid meeting of prospective bidders convened on 06.09.2023 to consider and deal with resolution of queries that may be raised by the prospective bidders. To the queries raised by different bidders, it was resolved and opined by the respondent herein and all the prospective bidders were communicated, where respondent shared corrigendum No. 2 and its related documents through link at the e-mail addresses of all the prospective bidders, including the representative of the petitioner Company – Sunny Vishwakarma, deponent of the petition, who attended the pre-bid meeting as well.
2.2 Last date for submission of tender was 03.10.2023, which was extended up to 02.11.2023. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notice, submitted the tender on the last date i.e. 02.11.2023. In all seven bidders participated in the tender process.
2.3 Technical bids were opened on 02.11.2023 at 5:00 p.m.. Thereafter, evaluation of technical bids was undertaken by the respondent. On evaluation of the technical bid of the petitioner, since it was not found to meet with the guidelines specified in “RFP document”, petitioner was held to be ineligible for further rounds vide communication dated 08.01.2024 communicated to the petitioner through e-mail, which is produced by petitioner at page 33. Thereafter, on 12.01.2024, price bids were opened and reverse auction in between eligible bidders undertaken. Reverse bid to further reduce price was undertaken inter-se amongst all eligible bidders.
By that date, lowest bidder could be identified. Thereafter, on 27.01.2024, “EMD” of the petitioner was returned, for which there is no dispute.
3. Heard Ms. Amrita Panda, learned advocate, with Mr. Tirth N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner.
3.1 According to her submission, the impugned communication dated 08.01.2024 holding petitioner ineligible is without assigning any reasons.
3.2 It is submitted that after receipt of the impugned order through e-mail dated 08.01.2024, the petitioner through e-mail dated 19.01.2024 requested detailed clarification and grounds on the basis of which its technical bid had been deemed ineligible but it has not yet been responded to. Since there was no response to the said communication, again an e-mail dated 30.01.2024 reiterating the contents of its earlier e-mail requesting authority’s prompt and comprehensive response so as to resolve the issue immediately, but it is also of no avail to the petitioner.
3.3 She has further submitted that as now law evolved, every executive/administrative action should be supported with reasons so as to know why petitioner is held to be ineligible.
3.4 It is further submitted that petitioner is kept in dark holding him ineligible for the tender and whole process is concluded after communicating in one line that he is held to be ineligible, without assigning any reason.
Carrying further the submission on the ground that impugned order being unreasoned, it is submitted that fresh reasons cannot be supplied by way of filing an affidavit-in-reply when order is challenged on that ground. It is submitted that reason
The decision to disqualify a bidder from a tender process does not require a reasoned order and should defer to the understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer of the proje....
Disqualification due to blacklisting applies to partnerships where designated partners impact eligibility, underscoring the authority's interpretation of tender conditions in public interest.
The discretion of the accepting authority in tender matters and the importance of truthful declarations in tender submissions.
Judicial review in tendering must focus on lawfulness over soundness; a bidder's failure to disclose critical past conduct can lead to disqualification without notice.
The rejection of the petitioners' bid was justified based on their debarment for supplying substandard quality drugs, in line with the State's policy to keep such manufacturers out of the tender proc....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
