The court reaffirmed that judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring no arbitrariness or illegality and emphasized the importance of fairness in the bidding process.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner-HKRP Innovations Ltd., assailing the award of tender to respondent No.2-Dutt Innovation Private Limited by respondent No.1-Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC).

2. It is informed to us by the respondents that the contract has been awarded on 20.11.2024 and by now, 100% installation of devices is completed by respondent No.2 and measurement and data collection work will be continued for (03) three years and the system is set-up and the reading of the system is already commenced.

3. The brief facts of the case are that : the tender in question was published on 23.01.2024 and the Bid Document suggests that the Bid Date was declared on or before 04.03.2024 at 19:00 hours and the date and time for opening of Bid was scheduled on 04.03.2024 at 19:30 hours. However, the last date was extended till 13.05.2024 for opening the Technical Qualification Bid.

4. The petitioner-Company participated in the tender process and when the writ petition was filed, an averment was made that for the best reasons known to the respondent No.1-ONGC, the Bids were not opened on the scheduled date i.e. on 04.03.2024, whereas it was opened on 13.05.2024 and the validity of submission of the said Bid was for 45 days and it was extended for multiple times by respondent No.1. It appears that thereafter, respondent No.2 was declared as L-1 and the petitioner made a representation to the Vigilance CVO Cell, ONGC DUB, New Delhi on 15.10.2024 and also filed a physical complaint. A formal complaint was also made regarding the discrepancies in qualifying the respondent No.2, through an e-mail on 17.10.2024.

5. A complaint was also made to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, on 18.10.2024 about the doubtful pre-qualification eligibility and opening of the Price Bid.

6. Learned Advocate Mr.Mihirkumar Patel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 has supplied any reasons for extending the time limit and it is not known as to when the date was extended for the Bid evaluation. It is submitted that respondent No.2 is neither having three years’ experience nor GST Registration Number at the time of the bid process. While referring to the clauses of the Bid documents, more particularly the “Eligibility and Experience of the Bidder”, he has submitted that respondent No.2 is failing in the said criteria and he has not executed at least one contract of supply and commissioning of minimum 500 numbers Internet of Things (IoT). It is also submitted that it is impossible to commission 650 (IoT) in 22 days, hence the contract awarded to respondent no.2 appears to be tainted.

7. It is further submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Patel that respondent No.2 lacks necessary experience and qualifications and it is allotted contract through the Joint Venture (JV), whereas on the other hand, the petitioner is having wide experience in the said field and have been doing the similar nature of work since long.

8. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Patel that, it can be seen from the timelines of the last 10 months, that the respondent No.1 has time and again extended the dates and accommodated the respondent No.2, though they do not have necessary qualification, nor they have GST number and nor have any experience.

9. It is further contended by learned Advocate Mr.Patel that the Independent External Monitor has not supplied the reasons for the extension of time for the bidding process. As per the notice of tender, it was first scheduled on 04.03.2024 at 19:30 hrs and later on the said process was extended only for the purpose of accommodating